Nu'u v Police - [2025] NZHC 1258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000161

[2025] NZHC 1258

BETWEEN
JO-ANN MARGARET NU’U

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 15 May 2025

Appearances:

A Kala for Appellant

G Lund for Respondent

Judgment:

21 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 21 May 2025 at 2.00 pm
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland

NU’U v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1258 [21 May 2025]

[1] Following a defended hearing in the District Court, Judge D A Bell found Ms Nu’u guilty on charges of careless driving1 and failing to comply with an enforcement officer’s requirement to permit a health practitioner to take a blood specimen.2 The Judge subsequently gave reasons for her decision on 31 March 2025.3

[2] Ms Nu’u appeals against conviction on both charges. She contends that errors in the Judge’s decision, and the process by which she reached her decision, have created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected.4

Leave to appeal out of time

[3] Ms Nu’u filed her notice of appeal nearly two months out of time. The reason for this was a delay by the Judge in providing reasons for her decision. The delay is therefore explained and has caused no prejudice to the respondent. I grant leave to file the appeal out of time accordingly.

Background

[4] The charges were laid following an incident that occurred on the afternoon of 21 October 2023. On that date, two police officers were called to a motor vehicle collision in suburban east Auckland. When they arrived at the scene, they spoke to [C], the driver of one of the vehicles that had been involved in the accident. He said the other vehicle had driven away, and that the female occupants of that vehicle were about to get into an Uber taxi around the corner. He gave the officers a description of the clothing worn by the driver of the other vehicle.

[5] One of the officers, Constable McKenzie, went around the corner and found three females getting into an Uber taxi. He spoke to these persons and obtained their details. He also obtained details of where they had been sitting in their vehicle.

[6] Satisfied that Ms Nu’u had been the driver of that vehicle, Constable McKenzie asked her whether she had been drinking alcohol. She said that she had consumed five

1      Land Transport Act 1998, s 37(1).
2      Sections 60 and 72(1)(a).
3      Police v Nu’u [2025] NZDC 5130.
4      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(2) and (4).

Heineken beers. He then administered a breath screening test with her consent. This returned a positive reading. The constable then placed Ms Nu’u in the rear seat of his vehicle and required her to undergo an evidential breath test. When her actions indicated that she refused, the officers drove her…

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 Nu'u v Police

Details

AGLC: Nu'u v Police [2025] NZHC 1258
Case: [2025] NZHC 1258
Decision Date: 21 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nu'u v Police is an appeal against conviction following a finding of guilt in the District Court on two charges, one of careless driving and the other of failing to comply with a requirement to provide a blood specimen. Ms Nu'u appealed against the conviction on both charges, arguing that there were errors in the Judge’s decision and the process by which the decision was reached that created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected. The appeal was filed out of time, as the Judge had delayed in providing her reasons for the decision, but the Court granted leave to appeal out of time as there had been no prejudice to the respondent.

The issues on appeal were whether the Judge's delay in providing her reasons breached Ms Nu'u’s rights under s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the Judge erred in finding that Ms Nu’u was the driver of one of the vehicles involved in the collision; whether the Judge erred in finding the evidence given by Constable McKenzie to be credible; and whether there was insufficient evidence to enable the Judge to conclude that Ms Nu'u had refused to provide a blood specimen. The Court found that there was no undue delay in the Judge’s provision of reasons, that there was ample evidence to support the Judge’s conclusion that Ms Nu'u was the driver, that credibility issues did not arise to any great degree, and that there was sufficient evidence to establish that Ms Nu'u had refused to provide a blood specimen.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction.

Orders