Larason v Police - [2021] NZHC 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2020-409-000127

[2021] NZHC 653

BETWEEN
JEROME WALTER LARASON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 25 March 2021

Appearances:

Appellant in person

W Taffs and J E Lancaster for Respondent

Judgment:

29 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 March 2021 at 4.00 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

LARASON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 653 [29 March 2021]

Introduction

[1] On 2 October 2019 Mr Larason was issued an infringement notice for travelling 100 km/h in an 80 km/h area in Rolleston. District Court Judge Hix found the infringement offence to be proved and the infringement fee was accordingly payable.1 Mr Larason now appeals that decision.

[2] To put Mr Larason’s appeal in context, he says he is motivated by public interest. I can do no better than to quote from his submissions to explain why:

3. This case is clearly in the public interest. They need to believe in a credible justice system. Road users need to know the rules they are required to follow and the rules the Police need to follow are fair and balanced and even more so that they will both apply reasonably and clearly.

4. They rely on proper signage to be able to know the specific rules in place at any given time. If road signs are not as they should be, the understanding generally, and the ability to follow those rules specifically, is completely undermined.

[3] Mr Larason appreciates that if he is unsuccessful in his appeal against conviction it follows, in a case such as this, that a discrete appeal against sentence is not appropriate.

Facts

[4] Mr Larason was issued an infringement notice alleging that on 2 October 2019 he drove a vehicle at a speed of 100 km/h, exceeding the 80 km/h speed limit. A police officer saw Mr Larason driving down Harewood Road and estimated he was driving over the 80 km/h speed limit. The police officer’s equipment recorded a speed of 100 km/h.

[5] Prior to the driving in question Mr Larason had been dropped off at a car that had been abandoned on the side of a road earlier by a family member. His wife had driven him to the car so that he could replace a punctured tyre and take the car home.

1 Larason v Police [2020] NZDC 16005.

Principles on appeal

[6] An appeal against the finding that an infringement offence has been proven is to be treated as if it were an appeal against conviction pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.2 The appellant may bring an appeal against conviction as a matter of right.3

[7] This Court may only allow an appeal against conviction if the Judge “erred in his or her assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred”, or that “a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any…

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] NZHC 653
Case: [2021] NZHC 653
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jerome Walter Larason appealed against the District Court's decision that found him guilty of exceeding the speed limit on Harewood Road in Rolleston. The District Court found that Larason was driving at 100 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, which constituted a strict liability offence. Larason argued that there were no speed signs along his route, and that he had no way of knowing that the speed limit was 80 km/h. He also claimed that his lack of attention to his surroundings while his wife was driving was not a reasonable mistake for the purpose of showing absence of fault. The High Court held that the District Court did not err in finding the infringement offence proven. The Court found that driving over the speed limit is a strict liability offence and the only defence available is total absence of fault. The Court held that Larason's lack of attention to his surroundings while his wife was driving was not a reasonable mistake for the purpose of showing absence of fault. The Court also found that the local roading authority had adhered to the Land Transport Rules, and even if they had not, it would not have relieved Larason of the obligation to make himself aware of the lawful driving limit. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Orders