Pearse v Police - [2023] NZHC 2900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2023-485-048 CRI-2023-485-049

CRI-2023-485-050 [2023] NZHC 2900

BETWEEN
SAMUEL PEARSE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 12 October 2023

Appearances:

R O’Hagan for Appellant N Jamieson for Respondent

Judgment:

17 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Appeal against convictions)

Introduction

[1]The appellant, Mr Samuel Pearse, appeals against three convictions:

(a)failing to stop when required (third or subsequent), offence date 23 June 2018;1

1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 52A(1)(a)(i) and (5) — maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment; and mandatory two-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence. The appellant was charged and convicted under s 52A(1)(a)(i) for failing to stop as soon as practicable when signalled or requested to stop under s 114(1). However, this appears to be an error, and the correct charge ought to have been under s 52A(1)(a)(ii), for failing to stop when required to under s 114(2). This was not raised on appeal and all other documents, including those in this appeal, refer to s 52A(1)(a)(ii). Nothing turns on this point.

PEARSE v POLICE [2023] NZHC 2900 [17 October 2023]

(b)driving while disqualified (third or subsequent), offence date 14 August 2020;2 and

(c)driving while disqualified (third or subsequent), offence date 26 September 2020.3

[2] The appellant says he was wrongly charged with failing to stop for the third or subsequent offence under the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act), as he did not have the prerequisite previous convictions to engage the aggravated form of this charge. The appellant says he wrongly therefore pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced in error. The appellant says this error informed the next two wrong-footed convictions for driving while disqualified.

[3] The appellant submits the failing to stop charge was in error because it was his first offence against s 52A, as his previous convictions for failing to stop were in 2006 and 2014, which pre-dated the enactment of s 52A. Accordingly, the appellant says the correct charge was pursuant to s 52A(1)(a)(ii)4 and (2)–(3), with a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and possibly six months’ disqualification. The appellant says he was instead charged in the aggravated form (for a third or subsequent offence), which carries a higher penalty, relevantly here a mandatory two-year disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.5

[4] The appellant says the error was not discovered by any of the parties involved, and he pleaded guilty to the charge in its aggravated form. He was then sentenced and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for the mandatory two years from 22 August 2019 to 22 August 2021, cumulative on a six-month disqualification for a separate charge of dangerous driving. The appellant says that if he had been properly charged and convicted, the correct maximum penalty of six months’ disqualification would have ended by 22 August 2019 (although this fails to account

2 Sections 32(1)(a) and (4) — maximum penalty two years’ imprisonment or…

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 Pearse v Police

Details

AGLC: Pearse v Police [2023] NZHC 2900
Case: [2023] NZHC 2900
Decision Date: 17 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samuel Pearse appealed against three convictions to the High Court of New Zealand, arguing that he was improperly charged and convicted for failing to stop when required, and subsequently for driving while disqualified. The appellant contended that he was wrongly charged with failing to stop for the third or subsequent offence under the Land Transport Act 1998, as he did not have the requisite previous convictions to engage the aggravated form of the charge. Consequently, he argued that his guilty plea was misinformed, and the subsequent convictions for driving while disqualified were also in error. The court considered whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the misapplication of the law in charging the appellant. The High Court determined that the appellant's misunderstanding of the charge led to an unfair trial, as he did not fully appreciate the nature of the charge when pleading guilty. The court found a miscarriage of justice and quashed the conviction for failing to stop when required, substituting a conviction under s 52A(1)(a)(ii) and s 52A(3) with a sentence of six months' disqualification. The court also set aside the convictions for driving while disqualified, entering judgments of acquittal for those charges as the appellant would not have been disqualified at the time of the offences.

The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the Land Transport Act 1998 and the appellant's understanding of the charge at the time of pleading guilty. By recognising the fundamental error in the original charge, the High Court ensured the appellant received a fair trial and appropriate sentence, correcting the legal misapplication that led to the initial convictions. This ruling underscores the importance of accurate legal charges and the appellant's understanding of those charges in ensuring a just outcome.

Orders