McCoy v Police - [2023] NZCA 108

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA143/2022
[2023] NZCA 108

BETWEEN	JAKE ELIJAH MCCOY Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	20 March 2023
Court:	Brown, Lang and Palmer JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Appellant M J Lillico for Respondent
Judgment:	19 April 2023 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brown J)

Introduction

Following a judge-alone trial in the District Court at Christchurch the appellant, Mr McCoy, was convicted on a charge of dangerous driving.[1] His appeal against conviction in the High Court was dismissed.[2] He appeals to this Court pursuant to a grant of leave.[3]

Factual background

[1]Police v McCoy [2021] NZDC 15034 [District Court judgment].

[2]McCoy v Police [2022] NZHC 252 [High Court judgment].

[3]McCoy v Police [2022] NZCA 617 [Leave judgment].

Mr McCoy was charged with driving a motor vehicle in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, might have been dangerous to the public or a person.[4]
[4]Land Transport Act 1998, ss 7(2) and 35(1)(b).
The circumstances of the offending were described by Judge Brandts-Giesen as follows:[5]
[2] The complainant in this matter is [B] whose fiancée apparently lives … [in a Christchurch suburb]. He was visiting her and had driven his vehicle which he had earlier parked further down the road according to the fiancée … He drove this and parked it in a conventional manner outside her home. Before getting out of the vehicle he checked and saw a vehicle in the distance coming around the roundabout at [a road] which [was] some distance from where the complainant parked. The complainant got out of the vehicle and says he was clear of it by the time the defendant came to pass it. The complainant’s evidence was that the defendant hurled some abuse at him; drove on and did a u-turn at the intersection of [a number of roads] where there is a roundabout. He then came back towards the complainant’s vehicle and stopped in the middle of the road hurling more abuse at the complainant including calling him a [racial slur] and then proceeded and stopped the vehicle on the wrong side of the road but just past the complainant’s vehicle. The exact distance does not matter much but it appears to have been in the vicinity of three or four metres.
[3] The defendant’s vehicle was a utility with the back end closest to the back of the complainant’s vehicle. The defendant then threatened to damage the complainant’s vehicle. The complainant told him to go away. The defendant continued with his threat and reversed his vehicle towards that of the complainant but the complainant stepped between the defendant’s vehicle and his own vehicle and the defendant stopped his reverse. The reverse, according to a neighbour who saw this, was not fast nor slow. It would be difficult, in my view, to estimate the speed…

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 McCoy v Police

Details

AGLC: McCoy v Police [2023] NZCA 108
Case: [2023] NZCA 108
Decision Date: 19 April 2023 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Mr. Jake McCoy appealed against his conviction of dangerous driving, following a trial and appeal in the New Zealand courts. The Court of Appeal heard the matter on 20 March 2023, with the judgment delivered on 19 April 2023. The Court dismissed the appeal. The central issue in this case was whether the District Court Judge erred in considering Mr. McCoy's aggressive behaviour and internal state of mind when determining if his driving was dangerous. The Court of Appeal examined the objective test for dangerous driving, which does not depend on the driver's state of mind, but rather the manner of the driving and the circumstances. The Court held that while the driver's state of mind is not relevant, observable conduct and contemporaneous statements may inform the manner of driving. In this case, Mr. McCoy's reversing of his vehicle towards the complainant's car, accompanied by a threat to cause damage, constituted dangerous driving. The appeal was dismissed, affirming Mr. McCoy's conviction for dangerous driving.

Orders