Paterson v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-005 - [2011] NZHC 1269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2011-418-005

BETWEEN PHILIP ANTHONY PATERSON Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 August 2011 and
3 October 2011

Counsel: Appellant (In person) D Lane as MacKenzie friend
M Zintl (on 22 August) for Respondent
P A Currie (on 3 October) for Respondent

Judgment: 4 October 2011

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

[1] Mr Paterson appeals his conviction for reckless driving. It is said that he deliberately drove into the path of a heavy truck, causing the truck to skid as its driver came to an emergency stop. He denies that he did anything of the sort.

[2] The truck was the second in a convoy of two which left Hokitika, travelling south, early on the morning of 4 July 2010. It was carrying 1080 poison to an aerial drop site. Its departure that morning had been delayed by protest action at the depot.

[3] On State Highway 6 there is a bend north of the Waitaha Bridge. At the apex of the bend lies an intersection with Beach Road. From the perspective of a driver travelling south the bend is left-hand and the intersection is on the right. Eighty seven metres past the intersection is the Waitaha Bridge, which is one-lane. Vehicles travelling south must give way to oncoming traffic. The advisory speed on
the bend is 65kph.

PHILIP ANTHONY PATERSON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC GRY CRI-2011-418-005 4 October 2011

[4] The evidence of the truck driver, Mr Turner, was that he reached the bridge at between 7 and 7.30am. It was still dark. As he approached the Beach Road intersection at about 60-70 kph he received a radio message that the first truck had been stopped on the bridge due to protest action. It appears that the driver had encountered oncoming traffic but decided not to yield, with the result that both he and the northbound vehicles stopped on the bridge. Mr Paterson, whose utility vehicle was not displaying lights, then pulled out of the intersection and into Mr Turner’s path. He made an emergency stop to avoid hitting Mr Paterson’s utility. The truck pulled to the left with wheels locked, but came to a stop just a metre from the utility. Mr Paterson got out and abused him, at which point Mr Turner recognised him.

[5] Mr Paterson is opposed to the use of 1080 poison. He is part of a group that had been monitoring operations, and he had already been to another site that day. He represented himself, cross-examining Mr Turner and both giving and calling evidence. His account was that, far from pulling out in front of the second truck, he was already stopped behind the first truck at the bridge when Mr Turner, who was travelling too fast, came up behind him. The first truck had tried to cross the bridge although there was oncoming traffic, and an argument had developed between that driver and those of the northbound vehicles. Mr Paterson said he tried…

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 Paterson v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-005

Details

AGLC: Paterson v Police HC Greymouth CRI-2011-418-005 [2011] NZHC 1269
Case: [2011] NZHC 1269
Decision Date: 4 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Philip Anthony Paterson against his conviction for reckless driving. The appeal centred on an incident where Paterson allegedly drove his utility vehicle into the path of a truck, causing the truck to make an emergency stop. Paterson denied the allegations and claimed that he was already stopped at the bridge when the truck driver, Mr Turner, approached too quickly. Paterson also claimed that he was trying to let other vehicles through when the confrontation occurred. The evidence presented by Mr Turner was accepted by the court, while Paterson's testimony was found to be unreliable.

The legal issues in the case involved whether the District Court Judge erred in accepting Mr Turner's evidence, and whether Paterson was effectively deprived of his right to counsel due to a misunderstanding about the nature of the charge. The court found that the District Court Judge did not err in accepting Mr Turner's evidence, as it was consistent with other evidence presented and Paterson's identification as the utility driver was established. Furthermore, the court found that Paterson's decision to represent himself and not protest or seek an adjournment when he became aware of the charge did not deprive him of his right to counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction for reckless driving. The court found that Paterson's actions were reckless, as he deliberately placed other road users in danger, and the distinction between recklessness and carelessness did not affect the reliability of the conviction. The court also noted that although the penalty for careless use of a motor vehicle might have been less severe, this did not impact the conviction.

Orders