Krishnan v Police - [2021] NZHC 2061

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2021-404-000244

[2021] NZHC 2061

BETWEEN
YUVARAJ KRISHNAN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 10 August 2021

Counsel

A Takalai for Appellant

P Clifford for Respondent

Judgment:

10 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2021 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

KRISHNAN v POLICE [2021] NZHC 2061 [10 August 2021]

[1] Mr Krishnan pleaded guilty1 to one charge of operating a vehicle carelessly2 and one charge of failing to stop or ascertain injury.3 He applied to be discharged without conviction in the Manukau District Court. Judge Dawson declined the application, and instead convicted and discharged Mr Krishnan and ordered him to pay $3,500.00 in reparation. Mr Krishnan now appeals against that decision.

Background

[2] Mr Krishnan pleaded guilty to the following summary of facts. On the 21 October 2020, Mr Krishnan was driving westbound on the North Western motorway. As he was exiting the motorway at the St Lukes off-ramp, he was travelling in the left of two right-turning lanes that lead onto St Lukes Road. The complainant’s vehicle was ahead of Mr Krishnan’s, travelling at approximately 10 kilometres per hour on the approach to the intersection. As Mr Krishnan approached the complainant’s vehicle, he attempted to manoeuvre into the right lane, however, the left front corner of his vehicle struck the right rear corner of the complainant’s vehicle, pushing it forward and causing moderate damage to the vehicle. Mr Krishnan continued to drive but had to stop behind a vehicle that was stationary. The complainant yelled out to Mr Krishnan to stop but he ignored that request and continued to drive home. The complainant did not sustain any injuries in the crash.

District Court sentence

[3] Judge Dawson’s reasons for declining Mr Krishnan’s application were succinct. The Judge said:4

[4] I note you are 29 years of age, you have no previous convictions whatsoever. You have indicated through your counsel you wish to apply for a discharge without conviction. The offending is of relatively low gravity, given that no one was injured and you are able to pay reparation. You are about to study for your final exams to become a medical doctor and are concerned of the impact a conviction might have on your career.

1      Mr Krishnan entered pleas on 22 April 2021.
2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1). Maximum penalty fine of $3,000.00, and the court may order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period the court thinks fit.
3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(c). Maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment, a fine of
$4,500.00 and the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for six months or more.
4      Police v Krishnan [2021] NZDC 7416 [District Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Krishnan v Police

Details

AGLC: Krishnan v Police [2021] NZHC 2061
Case: [2021] NZHC 2061
Decision Date: 10 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Yuvaraj Krishnan has appealed against the decision of the Manukau District Court to convict and discharge him and order him to pay $3,500 in reparation. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand. Krishnan pleaded guilty to charges of careless driving and failing to stop or ascertain injury. The District Court judge, Judge Dawson, declined Krishnan’s application for a discharge without conviction. Krishnan argued that he was deprived of an adequate opportunity to present his application for discharge without conviction and that the Judge was wrong to refuse the application. The test for whether to grant a discharge without conviction is an evaluative judgment, not a matter of discretion. Therefore, the appellate court must make its own assessment of the application’s merits. Krishnan must show there has been a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court Judge, Whata J, considered the evidence before the District Court and new evidence presented at the hearing. The Judge concluded that conviction was grossly disproportionate to the offending, which was a momentary lapse of judgment leading to a minor motor vehicle accident. The offending was at the very low end of the spectrum for offending of its kind. Krishnan had no prior convictions for offending of this type, and he had completed a defensive driving course. The consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Krishnan was employed by the Auckland District Health Board in its COVID-19 Response Unit, and a conviction would have significant consequences for his employment and future training opportunities. The appeal was allowed, and Krishnan was discharged without conviction.

Orders