Maddigan v Police - [2024] NZHC 1692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2024-409-37

[2024] NZHC 1692

BETWEEN
FRASER WRIGHT MADDIGAN

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 30 May 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person

B W D Alexander for the Respondent

Judgment:

25 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

(leave for second appeal)

Introduction

[1] On 30 January 2023, while driving along Weka Pass Road on State Highway 7, the applicant Fraser Maddigan was stopped by a Police constable travelling at 99 km/h where it was alleged that the speed limit was 80 km/h. An infringement notice was issued against Mr Maddigan which he defended. Mr Maddigan’s case was heard before Justices of the Peace, who found the charge to have been proven, fined Mr Maddigan and ordered him to pay court costs. Mr Maddigan then appealed that decision to the District Court. The appeal was dismissed.1 Mr Maddigan wishes to appeal the District Court decision to this Court. He requires leave to do so, which the Police oppose.

1 Police v Maddigan [2024] NZDC 1237.

MADDIGAN v POLICE [2024] NZHC 1692 [25 June 2024]

[2] I am not satisfied the grounds for leave to appeal have been made out by Mr Maddigan. This judgment sets out my reasons for reaching this conclusion.

Legal principles

[3] Convictions are not recorded for infringement offences.2 Nonetheless, the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) applies.3

[4]As a second appeal, s 237 of the Act applies, stating:

237 Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court

(1) A convicted person may, with the leave of the second appeal court, appeal to that court against the determination of the person’s first appeal under this subpart.

(2) The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for a second appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that—

(a)the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or

(b)a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard.

[5] The threshold for “matter of general or public importance” is high; the matter must be of importance in the administration of criminal law and have broad application beyond the circumstances of the case.4 An example of this is Ker v R where leave was granted for appeal concerning the elements of offensive behaviour under s 4 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.5

[6] “A miscarriage of justice” means any error, irregularity or occurrence in or in relation to the trial that has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected, or has resulted in an unfair trial.6 The threshold for miscarriage of justice is high and not every error will amount to a miscarriage of justice.7 This Court will not interfere

2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 375.
3 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 21(8)(d). Larason v Police [2021] NZHC 653 at [6], citing Warren v Police [2014] NZHC 2258. Both cases involved appeals against traffic infringements. Although Williams…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maddigan v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 1692
Decision Date: 25 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Fraser Wright Maddigan sought leave to appeal a decision of the District Court that dismissed his appeal against a speeding infringement notice issued by the Police. The District Court had dismissed his appeal against a decision of the Justices of the Peace, who had found him guilty of exceeding the speed limit on State Highway 7 at Weka Pass. The applicant had been issued a notice for travelling at 99 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. Maddigan sought leave to appeal the decision of the District Court to the High Court.

The court had to decide whether Maddigan had established that the appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The criteria for a second appeal to be granted were high and required either a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice. The court considered the grounds for the appeal and found that none of the issues raised by Maddigan pointed to any matter of general or public importance. The court also found that Maddigan had not established that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. The District Court had reviewed the evidence and provided detailed reasoning for its conclusion, which the High Court found to be sufficient. The court noted that the appeal sought to relitigate factual findings made in the courts below and there was no basis for a third court to reconsider the evidence.

The High Court dismissed Maddigan's application for leave to bring a second appeal. The court found that there was no discernible risk of a miscarriage of justice if the proposed appeal was not heard and that Maddigan simply wished to relitigate the same arguments already advanced below. The District Court's decision was upheld, and Maddigan's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders