McCoy v Police - [2022] NZCA 617

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA143/2022
[2022] NZCA 617

BETWEEN	JAKE ELIJAH MCCOY Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Gilbert, Brewer and Moore JJ
Counsel:	A J Bailey for Applicant B So for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	9 December 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal against conviction is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Moore J)

In the District Court at Christchurch, Jake McCoy faced charges of dangerous driving,[1] common assault,[2] speaking threateningly,[3] resisting arrest[4] and two charges of wilful trespass.[5] He pleaded guilty to all but the charge of dangerous driving.
[1]Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b).
[2]Summary Offences Act 1981, s 9.
[3]Section 21(1)(a).
[4]Section 23(a).
[5]Trespass Act 1980, s 4(4).
Following a judge-alone trial before Judge J J Brandts-Giesen, Mr McCoy was found guilty of dangerous driving.[6] He appealed. On 23 February 2022, Osborne J dismissed his appeal against conviction.[7]
[6]Police v McCoy [2021] NZDC 15034 [District Court judgment].
[7]McCoy v Police [2022] NZHC 252 [High Court judgment].
Mr McCoy now seeks leave to bring a second appeal against conviction. The police oppose.

The offending

For present purposes, it is necessary to summarise only the offending underlying the dangerous driving charge.
On 10 October 2020, Mr McCoy was driving his ute down a street in Christchurch. The complainant, B, had parked his car on the side of the road, near his fiancée’s house. Before leaving the car, he looked up and saw Mr McCoy driving around a roundabout some distance away. He opened his car door and got out.
Mr McCoy drove past. As he did, he hurled abuse at B. Then he executed a U-turn and drove back towards B. He stopped in the middle of the road and continued his verbal abuse of B, including the delivery of a racial slur.
Mr McCoy then drove onto the wrong side of the road and stopped about three or four metres past B’s car. The rear of his ute was closest to the back of B’s vehicle. Mr McCoy threatened to smash B’s car. B asked him not to. Undeterred, Mr McCoy reversed towards B’s car. B stood in between the two vehicles. He placed his hands on the ute in an attempt or gesture to Mr McCoy to stop. Mr McCoy stopped. A neighbour, who witnessed the events unfold described the speed of the ute as “medium pace” but with “some intent that it was gonna keep going”.
B told Mr McCoy he would call the police. Mr McCoy responded that he did not care and would be back with some friends. He then drove away. The police later found and arrested him.

District Court judgment

The trial Judge framed the issue as whether Mr McCoy was “driving in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances of the case had been dangerous to the public or a person”.[8]…

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 [2022] NZCA 617
Case: [2022] NZCA 617
Decision Date: 9 December 2022 at 9.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Jake McCoy sought leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for dangerous driving. The appeal was heard by Gilbert, Brewer, and Moore JJ of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Mr McCoy was initially convicted in the District Court and subsequently had his appeal dismissed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal considered whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance, or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

The key legal issue was whether the driver’s state of mind is a relevant circumstance when assessing whether the driving was dangerous. Mr McCoy’s counsel argued that the trial Judge erred in relying on evidence of Mr McCoy’s aggressive state of mind, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, it was argued that the proposed appeal concerned a matter of general or public importance, as it sought clarification on the correct approach to assessing dangerous driving charges.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal raised a genuinely arguable question of law that was of general or public importance. The statutory test for dangerous driving requires an objective assessment of whether the driving was dangerous to the public or a person, considering all the circumstances. The Court considered it arguable that the driver’s state of mind is not relevant to this assessment. The Court concluded that a miscarriage of justice may result if the appeal is not heard, and that clarification of the correct approach is desirable to ensure these types of cases are dealt with efficiently and consistently.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal granted Mr McCoy leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for dangerous driving. The Court of Appeal's decision ensures that the issue of whether a driver’s state of mind is relevant when assessing dangerous driving charges will be considered by a higher court, potentially providing clarity for future cases.

Orders