Lord v Police - [2022] NZHC 1103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2022-454-4

[2022] NZHC 1103

BETWEEN
MATTHEW TOMAS LORD

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 May 2022

Appearances:

P L Murray for the Appellant

A M Barham for the Respondent

Judgment:

19 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors
Paul Murray Barrister & Solicitor, Palmerston North Crown Solicitor, Palmerston North

LORD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 1103 [19 May 2022]

What happened?

[1] On 29 July 2019, the appellant, Mr Matthew Lord flew from Palmerston North to Auckland to pick up and drive back a 1998 Mitsubishi Lancer EVO 5 he had just bought. Around 7.30 pm he was approximately 10 kilometres south of Taihape on State Highway 1. There he collided with a Mazda 3 driven by the complainant, Ms Dara Graham. Both of them were seriously injured. Ms Graham suffered severe injuries, fracturing her pelvis, sternum, leg (in several places), heel, ankle and vertebrae. She had multiple bruising. She was in a wheelchair for more than two months and had fluid on her lungs.

[2] Neither Mr Lord nor Ms Graham had any memory of what happened. On 5 October 2021, in the Taihape District Court, Mr Lord defended a charge of aggravated careless driving causing injury, under s 39 of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA). The transcript from the judge-alone trial is not available and the audio quality of the recording is so bad that much of it is inaudible. But Judge J Krebs set out his understanding of the evidence in some detail in his judgment.1 In summary, relevantly:

(a)A witness, Mr Lawrence Jensen, gave evidence that he was travelling north behind Ms Graham’s car, saw Mr Lord’s car round a corner and cross the centre line. His evidence was that the headlights of Mr Lord’s car were completely obscured by Ms Graham’s car. Her vehicle veered away off the road, at which point the left headlight of Mr Lord’s car came into view. Then the two vehicles collided. Mr Jensen’s car hit Mr Lord’s car and pushed it partly back across the centre line into the southbound lane.

(b)Another witness, Mr Keith Wood, was travelling north behind Mr Jensen. He said the weather was fine and clear and road conditions were reasonable.

(c)A third witness, Mr Wade Wilson, was travelling south. While he was travelling at 100 kilometres per hour he saw Mr Lord’s car come up

1 New Zealand Police v Lord [2021] NZDC 20643.

very quickly behind him and pass him in a passing lane. He said Mr Lord’s car made three attempts to pass another car 500 metres ahead. Mr Wilson had talked to Mr Lord at the Taihape BP Service Station. He noticed the road was slippery with dampness but was drivable and he did not have any problem driving, providing he was driving to the conditions. It was more slippery as he got close to the scene of…

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 Lord v Police

Details

AGLC: Lord v Police [2022] NZHC 1103
Case: [2022] NZHC 1103
Decision Date: 19 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by Mr Matthew Lord against his conviction and sentencing for aggravated careless driving causing injury, as well as a challenge to a specific condition of his sentence. Mr Lord had been convicted in the Taihape District Court following a car accident where his vehicle collided with a vehicle driven by Ms Dara Graham, resulting in serious injuries to Ms Graham. The evidence at the trial was largely circumstantial, and the quality of the recording was poor, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of the accident. The District Court Judge concluded that Mr Lord had driven on the wrong side of the road, which was the sole cause of the accident. Mr Lord appealed the conviction on the grounds that the Judge had erred in assessing the evidence and that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. He also challenged the condition of his sentence that required him to attend a drug and alcohol counselling programme.

The High Court found that while the evidence did not establish that Mr Lord was driving in a manner in breach of the rules or regulations, the elements of the offence of careless driving causing injury were met. The Judge's conclusion that Mr Lord was not driving to the conditions of the road was supported by the evidence. However, the Judge had erred in convicting Mr Lord of aggravated careless driving, as the evidence did not support a finding that Mr Lord acted deliberately in a manner in breach of the relevant rule or regulation. The Court substituted the conviction for aggravated careless driving with a conviction for careless driving causing injury. Regarding the sentence, the Court agreed with Mr Lord that the condition requiring attendance at a drug and alcohol counselling programme was not related to the offending and was therefore an error. The Court quashed this condition but left the rest of the sentence intact.

Orders