Mann v Police - [2015] NZHC 588

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-000139 [2015] NZHC 588

BETWEEN
STUART DOUGLAS MANN

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 26 March 2015

Appearances:

A Bailey for Appellant
A C Trinder and K B Bell for Crown

Judgment:

27 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

Background

[1] Mr Mann appeals the decision of Judge B P Callaghan on 10 December 2014 convicting him for “sustained loss of traction” under s 36A(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998.1 Mr Mann was sentenced on the same day to a fine of $650 and
a period of six months’ disqualification from driving.2

The Facts

[2] At 8.00 pm on the 5 July 2014, Constable Newman was sitting in his stationary police vehicle at the intersection between State Highway 1 and 7 at the turnoff to Hanmer Springs. The Constable’s evidence is that he saw a Ford utility vehicle stop at the give way at the intersection, indicating to turn right. This vehicle
was driven by Mr Mann.

1 Police v Mann DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-006563, 10 December 2014 [Conviction].
2 Police v Mann DC Christchurch CRI-2014-009-006563, 10 December 2014 [Sentencing].

[3] The Constable contends that Mr Mann excessively revved his engine before taking off at speed causing the rear wheels to spin. Mr Mann then made a right turn causing the vehicle to “fish-tail”, and he continued to make the vehicle fish-tail from right to left five or six times up to the Waipara River Bridge.

[4] Mr Mann recounts a different version of events which entail him simply having taken the corner too fast, accidentally knocking the gear stick into neutral and then briefly losing control when he put the vehicle back in gear.

[5] Mr Mann appeals against the conviction of the Judge on the basis that the decision was arrived at on the basis of erroneous reasoning, and a miscarriage of justice resulted.

[6] A person may appeal their conviction to the first appeal court as of right.3 The High Court is the first appeal court for a conviction entered by a District Court presided over by a District Court Judge.4

Jurisdiction

[7] Under s 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 this Court must allow an appeal if it is satisfied that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason.

Section 232 defines a “miscarriage of justice” to mean:

(4) … any error, irregularity, or occurrence in or in relation to or affecting the trial that-

(a) has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected; or

(b) has resulted in an unfair trial or a trial that was a nullity.

[8] Under s 232(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a “real risk” exists when “there is a reasonable possibility that a not guilty (or more favourable) verdict

3 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 229(1).
4 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 230.

might have been delivered if nothing had gone wrong.”5 This standard means that “an appellant does not…

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 Mann v Police

Details

AGLC: Mann v Police [2015] NZHC 588
Case: [2015] NZHC 588
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart Douglas Mann appeals his conviction for sustained loss of traction under the Land Transport Act 1998, which was determined by Judge B P Callaghan on December 10, 2014. Mann was fined $650 and disqualified from driving for six months. Mann contends that his conviction resulted from erroneous reasoning and a miscarriage of justice. The appeal is heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, under the jurisdiction granted by section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, which allows for an appeal if there is a miscarriage of justice.

The central issue is whether the Judge’s reasoning was erroneous and if this resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Mann argues that the Judge improperly discredited his evidence by suggesting that he had a motive to lie solely because he was the accused. The Crown contends that the Judge’s comments were not so prejudicial as to affect the trial outcome. The Court of Appeal in R v Leef and the Supreme Court in R v Stewart support Mann's argument that suggesting an accused's motive to lie stems solely from their status as an accused is inappropriate. The High Court finds that the Judge's reasoning was indeed flawed, and this likely influenced his credibility findings, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The High Court concludes that the appeal should be allowed, and the conviction set aside. The Court declines to order a retrial given the relatively low level of seriousness of the offence and the punitive consequences already imposed on Mann. The appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are quashed.

Orders