Payne v Police - [2014] NZHC 328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-000017 [2014] NZHC 328

MICHAEL JAMES PAYNE Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 February 2014

Appearances: Appellant in Person
C Butchard and C Newman for Respondent

Judgment: 28 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] On the morning of 12 October 2012 the appellant was driving his vehicle through the Weka Pass on State Highway 7 in North Canterbury. He was observed crossing the marked centre line on the winding road. The appellant’s vehicle was approximately 80% over the centre line.

[2] The appellant’s manoeuvre was captured on photograph and he was stopped by Police a short time later. When spoken to, he at first denied crossing the centre line before accepting his actions and said that he was concerned about demerit points. The appellant was issued with an infringement notice.

[3] The infringement notice alleged an offence against s 40 of the Land Transport Act 1998, reg 4 of the Offences and Penalties Regulations 1999 and r 2.1(1) of the Road User Rules 2004 in that he did drive a vehicle on a road and failed to drive as
near as practicable to the left side of the roadway.

PAYNE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 328 [28 February 2014]

[4] The appellant was sent a reminder notice in respect of the alleged offence on

22 November 2012 subsequent to which the appellant advised that he did not admit liability and requested a hearing. In accordance with the procedure set out in s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 a notice of hearing was served on the appellant advising that the matter would be heard by the District Court at Rangiora on
23 January 2013. Arrangements were then made for the matter to be transferred to the Christchurch District Court for the purposes of a defended hearing on 26 July
2013. At the appellant’s request that hearing date was vacated and a new fixture date set for 29 November 2013. On 27 November 2013 the appellant advised the District Court in writing that he wished to plead guilty to the charge. He requested that “the Court case be withdrawn so that I am not liable for Court costs”.

[5] The matter came before Justices of the Peace who in the absence of the appellant sentenced the appellant. The appellant was not required to attend in person. The notes on sentencing of the Justices of the Peace read as follows:

In the matter of Michael James Payne, he has pleaded guilty by letter. He is convicted and fined $500 plus Court costs of $132.89, and further he is disqualified from holding or obtaining a drivers licence for three months commencing 30 January 2014, and that disqualification is made under s 80 of the Act, as it is a road safety matter.

[6] The appellant remained in ignorance of his disqualification as notice of his disqualification was sent to an old address of some years’ vintage. It was…

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 Payne v Police

Details

AGLC: Payne v Police [2014] NZHC 328
Case: [2014] NZHC 328
Decision Date: 28 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Payne v Police addressed the validity of a disqualification order imposed by Justices of the Peace on the appellant, Michael James Payne, for an alleged traffic offence. Payne was found guilty of crossing the centre line on a winding road and was issued an infringement notice. After Payne contested the notice, the matter was heard by Justices of the Peace who imposed a fine, costs, and a three-month disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence. Payne appealed the disqualification order, arguing that the Justices of the Peace lacked jurisdiction to impose such a penalty. The Court examined the statutory framework governing infringement offences and found that, while the Justices had jurisdiction over infringement offences, they did not have the authority to impose a disqualification order as it would require a conviction, which cannot be entered for an infringement offence. The Court quashed the disqualification order and allowed the appeal, stating that the fine and costs imposed were adequate.

Orders