Larason v Police - [2021] NZCA 440

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA232/2021
[2021] NZCA 440

BETWEEN	JEROME LARASON Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	French, Mander and Palmer JJ
Counsel:	C M Ruane for Applicant P D Marshall for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	6 September 2021 at 9 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French J)

Introduction

Mr Larason seeks leave to appeal a decision of Doogue J in the High Court.[1] The decision concerned an infringement offence for speeding which the Judge found had been proven against him.
[1]Larason v Police [2021] NZHC 653 [High Court judgment].
Leave is required because an appeal in this Court would be a second appeal, the High Court decision being itself an appeal from a District Court decision.[2]
[2]Police v Larason [2020] NZDC 16005 [District Court judgment].
In a minute dated 30 June 2021, Collins J directed that the application for leave be determined separately from the proposed appeal and be heard on the papers.[3]

Background

[3]Larason v Police CA232/2021, 30 June 2021 (Minute of Collins J).

On 2 October 2019, Mr Larason drove a motor vehicle at a speed of 100 km/h on a stretch of Jones Road on the outskirts of Christchurch where the speed limit was 80 km/h.[4] He was observed by a police officer who issued him with an infringement notice. The District Court found the charge proven and ordered payment of the infringement fee of $200 together with court costs.[5]
[4]Near the township of Rolleston. In the District Court, Mr Larason disputed the accuracy of the device used by the officer to measure his speed but no longer pursues that argument.
[5]District Court judgment, above n 2, at [42].
At the time of the incident Mr Larason was undertaking a seven-kilometre journey on a route that did not contain any speed limit signs. The roads he was travelling on were not densely populated areas but “hedge lines, paddocks and farms with a spattering of homes”.[6]
[6]High Court judgment, above n 1, at [22]. This was Mr Larason’s description which the High Court accepted as accurate.
He contends that the absence of signage was a breach of the road controlling authority’s obligations under r 4.2 of the Land Transport Rule 54002: Traffic Control Devices 2004. He contends further that although the offence of speeding is one of strict liability, he had a good defence of total absence of fault.
The vehicle which Mr Larason was driving had earlier been left on the roadside by a family member because of a punctured tyre. His wife had driven him to the abandoned car so he could replace the punctured tyre and drive the car home. The speeding occurred on the journey home. The journey to the abandoned car had taken him past an 80 km/h sign. Because he was only a passenger at that point, he…

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 Larason v Police

Details

AGLC: Larason v Police [2021] NZCA 440
Case: [2021] NZCA 440
Decision Date: 6 September 2021 at 9 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jerome Larason sought leave to bring a second appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of Doogue J in the High Court which found him guilty of an infringement offence for speeding. The High Court decision was itself an appeal of a decision of Judge Hix in the District Court. The Court of Appeal held that the application for leave to appeal was declined. The Court found that Mr Larason had not satisfied the threshold to grant leave to appeal as there was no tenable argument that there had been a miscarriage of justice or that the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance. The Court found that Mr Larason's argument that there was a total absence of fault on his part was unassailable as there was an 80 km/h sign that he passed on his outward journey. The Court also found that the interpretation of the relevant rule advanced by Mr Larason was not tenable as it would produce an absurd result. Mr Larason no longer sought to challenge his sentence.

Orders