Larason v Police - [2024] NZHC 2164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-200

[2024] NZHC 2164

BETWEEN
JEROME WALTER JUNIOR LARASON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 1 August 2024

Appearances:

C J Lange for Appellant

W J S Mohammed for Respondent

Judgment:

2 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] In an oral judgment delivered by Judge Duggan on 22 August 2023,1 the appellant was found guilty of driving in excess of the applicable speed limit2 and received a fine of $700 as well as a requirement to pay court costs of $130.

[2]The appellant now appeals his conviction and sentence on the grounds that:

(a)there was an absence of fault on his part;

1 Police v Larason [2023] NZDC 19510.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 40; Land Transport (Offences & Penalties) Regulations 1999, regs 3– 4; and Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004, r 5.1(1) — maximum penalty of $1,000 fine.

LARASON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZHC 2164 [2 August 2024]

(b)errors said to have been made by the Judge resulting in the appellant not having a fair hearing; and

(c)The fine was excessive.

The Offending

[3] At around 2.00 pm on 4 March 2021, a white car was detected by a police officer to be travelling at around 80 kilometres per hour on Hoskyns Road near Rolleston, Canterbury. The police officer then activated his red and blue lights and had the white car, which at that point had been identified as a Nissan Leaf, pull into a BP Service Station nearby on State Highway 1. The appellant was found to be the driver and only occupant of the vehicle.

[4] The police officer informed the appellant that his speed had been checked at 80 kilometres per hour, and wrote up an infringement notice.

District Court Decision

[5] In her oral judgment, Judge Duggan accepted the evidence of the Senior Constable that the appellant’s car had been accurately recorded by the police car radar as travelling at 80 kilometres per hour. She also noted the evidence of the appellant that he rarely used Hoskyns Road and that after the infringement notice was given he returned to Hoskyns Road and saw that the speed limit signs were turned about, and that the front of the speed signs were not visible to the appellant and so he did not know Hoskyns Road had a reduced speed limit.

[6] The Judge found she was satisfied that based on the Senior Constable’s evidence the appellant was travelling at 80 kilometres per hour on Hoskyns Road subject to a 50 kilometres per hour speed restriction. The Judge stated the appellant’s defence required him to prove not only that he did not know the speed limit, but that there was no way he could have known and that he took all reasonable care to avoid travelling in excess of the speed limit. The Judge found the number of speed limit signs on Hoskyns Road satisfied…

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 [2024] NZHC 2164
Case: [2024] NZHC 2164
Decision Date: 2 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jerome Walter Junior Larason appealed against his conviction and sentence to the High Court. The appeal was against his conviction of driving in excess of the applicable speed limit and the fine of $700 imposed on him by the District Court. The legal issues before the Court were whether there was an absence of fault on the part of the appellant, whether errors had been made by the Judge resulting in the appellant not having a fair hearing, and whether the fine was excessive.

The Court found that the issue of what the speed limit is for a particular stretch of road is a question of law and not a mixed matter of law and fact. The appellant had failed to establish the defence of absence of fault on the balance of probabilities and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. The Court also found that the fine imposed of $700 was manifestly excessive in the absence of any aggravating features, and that a fine of $300 was appropriate.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was allowed. The sentence was set aside and a fine of $300 was imposed. The requirement to pay $130 Court costs was undisturbed.

Orders