P v Police HC Tauranga CRI 2006-470-13

[2007] NZHC 436

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY

ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2006-470-13

BETWEEN  P

Appellant

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         4 May 2007

Appearances: No appearance for the Appellant

J O'Brien for the Respondent

Judgment:      4 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J (Appeal against conviction and sentence)

Counsel:

J O’Brien, Crown Solicitors, P O Box 13063, Tauranga

Copy to: D L P 

D POOK V NZ POLICE  HC TAU CRI 2006-470-13  4 May 2007

[1]      The appellant,  Mr  P  ,  who acted for  himself  in the  Tauranga  District Court, filed a notice of appeal on 6 December 2006.   That document gave as his address 14 Sefton Street, Tauranga.

[2]      On 27 March an acknowledgement of that appeal was sent to him by the

Registry advising him that the appeal would be heard on a date to be fixed.

[3]      A notice of the hearing date was dispatched by the Registry on 27 April 2007 to Mr P   at his advised address.

[4]      He has been called today, three times, and there is no appearance.   At my request  counsel  for  the  respondent  has  checked  the  Bay  of  Plenty  telephone directory, but there is no P   listed at the address given.

[5]      The appellant was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol after a defended hearing in the Tauranga District Court before Judge R L Watson on 24

November 2006.  In essence the appellant’s motor vehicle was observed pulling up

100 metres, or thereabouts, short of a police alcohol check point.  A police officer approaching on foot noticed, through the windscreen, the shape of a person changing sides in the front seats of the vehicle.  The appellant was the only occupant of the vehicle.   No other person was observed in the  vehicle or leaving  it  after it  had stopped.

[6]      The appellant’s defence was along the lines that some unknown person called Shane was driving his vehicle as a favour and decamped when the vehicle stopped.  I do not need to go into the details of the evidence before the Judge, which clearly the Judge  fully understood.    Credibility  issues  were  centre  stage.    The  explanation advanced by the appellant in evidence suggesting that in fact he was not driving the vehicle were disbelieved and discarded.

[7]      Although the notice of appeal is framed as an appeal against sentence and conviction (the appellant was given a final warning, convicted and disqualified for a

period of 12 months and one day and fined) the thrust of the notice of appeal is clearly against conviction.

[8]      The notice of appeal suggests that “relevant information and supporting documentation” was not addressed; that there were discrepancies with the police evidence; and that the verdict was thus flawed.

[9]      As I have stated credibility was the major issue.  It is difficult to see what the appellant means by “documentation” since there is no formal challenge of a technical nature relating to certificates, devices, etc, which are usually the only hope so far as breath alcohol defences are concerned.

[10]     I am mindful of the fact the appellant  is representing himself, but  in the absence of any reason why he is not here today and particularly given my assessment of the merits  of such matters as the appellant has advanced in his notice of appeal I consider the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

……………………

Priestley J