P v Police HC Wellington CRI 2010-485-50

[2010] NZHC 980

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2010-485-50

P

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         22 June 2010

Counsel:         No Appearance for Appellant

M W C Snape for Respondent

Judgment:      22 June 2010

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J (Appeal against conviction and sentence)

Introduction

[1]      Mr P   was charged with and convicted by Justices of the Peace of driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 50 km per hour in a 50 km per hour speed zone in Porirua in February 2009.

[2]      Mr P  , who filed his own appeal, did not appear at the appeal hearing today.   However he identified his grounds of appeal in his notice of appeal as

follows:

P V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2010-485-50  22 June 2010

a)        he disputed the accuracy of the radar used to check his speed;

b)he disputed the reliability of police witnesses regarding the events which gave rise to the charge;

c)        he said he had been travelling at 55 km per hour and that should not be a crime compared with the 62 km per hour alleged;

d)       he said the police had acted deviantly in the matter; and

e)        he said that the relevant speeding law did not apply to Maori and therefore did not apply to him.

Justice’s of the Peace decision

[3]      The  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  their  decision  said  that  the  evidence  from Constable Pearce was that she was operating a radar device from a marked police vehicle on Champion Street, Porirua on 26 February 2009.  She gave evidence that the appellant’s vehicle with the appellant as the driver was clocked doing 62 km per hour.  Certificates of competency and accuracy for the radar device were produced.

[4]      Further, as the Justices remarked the appellant also admitted travelling at more than 50 km per hour.  They convicted and fined the appellant $80 and Court costs $30.

Appeal grounds

[5]      Firstly  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  radar.    Pursuant  to  s 146  of  the  Land Transport Act 1998 a certificate of accuracy of the radar device used to record the speed of the appellant’s car was produced.  Section 146(5) provides that a certificate of accuracy is deemed to be accurate if provided within a 12 month period of the speed assessment.   In this case the test date was 26 August 2008, the charge date

26 February 2009, well within the 12 month period.  I note that if the accuracy of the radar is to be challenged s 146(6) provides a process by which that can be done at

trial.  There is nothing to suggest in the notes of evidence or other material that that was done in this case.

[6]      Mr P   claimed his vehicle was only doing 55 km per hour by virtue of his speedometer.  That evidence does not displace the statutory presumption of accuracy of  the  radar  device especially given  there  was  no  evidence  of  any independent assessment of the accuracy of the speedometer in Mr P  ’s vehicle.  This ground of appeal therefore has no merit.

[7]      As to the claimed unreliability of police witnesses there was no dispute that it was Mr P   who was the driver of the vehicle or any dispute that it was his vehicle that was the subject of the radar assessment.  There is therefore no appellate issue here.

[8]      The third ground of appeal is that travelling at 55 km per hour was not or should not be a crime.   Whether or not it should or should not be a crime it is a crime.   Although the police have a discretion as to whether or not to prosecute someone travelling beyond the speed limit once they elect to do so travelling at

51 km per hour is an offence if it occurs in a 50 km per hour zone.  There is no doubt therefore that even on Mr P  ’s own admission he committed the offence.

[9]      Deviant police conduct.  There is simply no basis for this ground of appeal as suggested.

[10]     Finally the appellant says the relevant laws do not apply to him as he is Maori.   The New Zealand Parliament is empowered to make legislation which is binding on all persons within New Zealand’s territory regardless of race.  There is therefore no basis for this ground of appeal.

[11]     For the reasons given the appeal will be dismissed.

Solicitors:

Ronald Young J

M W C Snape, Luke Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10 357, Wellington, email:  [email protected]

P P  , 78 Arahura Crescent, Porirua