Matthews v Police - [2012] NZHC 2329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-226 [2012] NZHC 2329

BETWEEN ROWAN ASVIN MATTHEWS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2012

Counsel: A Haskett for Appellant
K Wendt for Respondent

Judgment: 14 September 2012

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

In accordance with r 11.5 High Court Rules

I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with a delivery time of 3 p.m. on 14 September 2012.

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland – katerina.wendt@meredithconnell.co.nz
Legal Defence Service Limited, Auckland – alistair@legaldefence.co.nz

MATTHEWS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-226 [14 September 2012]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Mr Matthews, appeals against his conviction in the Manukau

District Court on a charge of reckless driving (s 35(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act

1998).

Background

[2] On the evening of 13 August 2011, Mr Matthews was travelling in his car with his girlfriend, Ms Chely Gacitua. Mr Matthews’ car was a light grey Hyundai. Travelling with them in another vehicle were Ms Gacitua’s brother, Mr Felipe Gacitua, and his girlfriend, Ms Fay Roberts. They were travelling in Mr Gacitua’s red Toyota.

[3] All four had left the home of Ms Gacitua’s sister in Botany Downs and were travelling to Mr Gacitua and Ms Roberts’ house in Polo Prince Drive, Manurewa. They travelled by what was referred to as the back way, going through East Tamaki/Flat Bush.

[4] The evidence at trial focussed on events which occurred between the intersection of Mill Road and Redoubt Road and the intersection of Mill Road and Ranfurly Road. Between those two points it was alleged that the cars in which the two parties were travelling overtook other cars in a manner that was unsafe. The occupants of the cars which were overtaken were Ms Sheetal Maharaj and her husband and also Mr Lee Wong and his sister Ms Melissa Wong.

[5] After the overtaking events which are at issue in this appeal, there was a head on collision between Mr Gacitua’s vehicle and another at the corner of Mill Road and Ranfurly Road. Ms Roberts was killed in that crash.

[6] Mr Matthews was not charged in relation to the fatal crash. However during the course of the investigation into that crash he voluntarily went to the Manukau police station and provided a witness statement to Constable Petrie. The police later

sought to use that witness statement against Mr Matthews in relation to the charge of reckless driving against him. The District Court Judge ruled the statement to be admissible.

[7] Ms Maharaj, the Wong siblings, Ms Gacitua and Constable Petrie all gave evidence at Mr Matthews trial, as well as Mr Matthews himself. Mr Matthews was convicted of reckless driving, fined $750, ordered to pay Court costs and disqualified from driving for six months. Mr Matthews appeals to this Court against his conviction.

Issues

[8] The key issues that arise on appeal are:

(a) Should the Judge have excluded the witness statement provided by Mr Matthews on the basis that it was improperly…

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 Matthews 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: [2012] NZHC 2329
Decision Date: 14 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthews v Police involved an appeal by the appellant, Rowan Asvin Matthews, against his conviction in the Manukau District Court for reckless driving. The appeal centred on the admissibility of a witness statement provided by Matthews to the police, which the District Court had admitted. Matthews argued that the statement was improperly obtained and should have been excluded, and that without this evidence, there was insufficient evidence to convict him of reckless driving. The key issues were whether the statement was improperly obtained under the Evidence Act, and if so, whether its exclusion would be proportionate to the impropriety. If the statement was excluded, the court had to determine if there was still sufficient evidence to convict Matthews.

The court found that the caution given to Matthews was appropriate and that he understood the potential jeopardy he faced. Matthews was literate, articulate, and aware of his rights, and the caution was given in a manner consistent with the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning. The court concluded that Matthews’ waiver was effective and his statement was not obtained unfairly. Additionally, the court found no breach of the Privacy Act 1993, as Matthews should have been aware that his statement could be used against him.

Even without Matthews’ statement, the court found sufficient evidence to convict him of reckless driving. The evidence showed that Matthews and another driver were engaging in dangerous overtaking manoeuvres, which were objectively dangerous and placed other road users at risk. Witnesses described the cars passing dangerously close to other vehicles, and Matthews’ own girlfriend testified that he was driving dangerously. The court concluded that the evidence, even without Matthews’ statement, was sufficient to prove the charge of reckless driving beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court found no grounds to exclude Matthews’ statement, and the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Orders