N v Police HC Invercargill Cri-2010-425-7
[2010] NZHC 1349
•6 August 2010
This case has been anonymized
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
CRI-2010-425-000007
N
Appellant
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 3 August 2010
Counsel: Appellant In Person
M G Sinclair for Respondent
Judgment: 6 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF PANCKHURST J
[1] Following a formal proof hearing in the District Court at Gore an infringement offence was found to be established and Mr N was fined $100 together with $130 court costs for failing to drive in the left hand lane of the roadway. He appeals against the finding on the basis that the Justices of the Peace should not have found the offence established in light of the evidence which they heard.
[2] On 30 July 2009 two women were driving from Invercargill to Gore. They had attended a training day at Gore in relation to their employment. It was late
afternoon. In the vicinity of Edendale, but extending over quite a distance, they
N V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC INV CRI-2010-425-000007 6 August 2010
observed a vehicle ahead of them which was driving erratically. Its speed varied from 70 to 110 kilometres per hour. On several occasions the car drifted across the centre line, including when there was oncoming traffic. Then, the driver would correct his position and return to his correct side.
[3] The front seat passenger phoned 555 and reported the registration number of the car to a police operator. The two women continued to follow the car towards Gore. On the outskirts of the town they saw the appellant’s vehicle in the process of its being stopped by a constable.
[4] The constable gave evidence before the Justices. He said he stopped the vehicle and spoke to the appellant who stated:
I can’t remember crossing the centre line at all, I have done a few thousand kilometres over the last days all over the country.
Although the constable had followed the appellant for a short time he did not witness any failure to remain in the left hand lane.
[5] The Justices asked the constable a number of questions. These concerned, amongst other things, the colour of the vehicle, since the two female witnesses had variously described it as “green” and “silver grey”. The constable commented that he had taken no notice of the colour of the vehicle, since he was interested in the registration number.
[6] In anticipation of the hearing on 11 March 2010, the appellant had written to the Gore District Court requesting that the case be delayed until he was next in Gore “on business” at which time he would appear to defend the charge. He enclosed with the letter an affidavit in which he denied the charge, referred to his good driving record and critiqued the evidence of the two lay witnesses. He stressed differences in their accounts as to the colour of his car, its travelling speed and the distance between his vehicle and theirs. It is apparent that the Justices considered the affidavit, since some questions were asked by them which reflected the criticisms contained in the affidavit.
[7] I am satisfied this was a clear case. There are contextual differences in the accounts of the two lay witnesses. This is often the case where untrained observers describe an event which they have witnessed. But what is plain is that both witnesses observed the appellant’s vehicle drifting onto the wrong side of the road from time to time, and then a correction. Moreover, the witnesses were obviously concerned, in that the registration number was taken and reported to the police.
[8] In my view there is no scope for misidentification or mistake as to what the witnesses observed. The women followed the appellant’s vehicle and witnessed it being stopped by the constable. There was ample evidence in support of the
infringement offence. The appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Appellant - Mr K E N , 1 Te Kapa Place, Snells Beach, Rodney District 0920. Preston Russell Law, Invercargill for Respondent.
0
0
0