Police v Haunui - [2015] NZHC 2456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-409-63 [2015] NZHC 2456

BETWEEN
NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Appellant

AND

DENNIS MAX HAUNUI Respondent

CRI-2015-485-52

BETWEEN PATRICK MILLER Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 September 2015

Counsel:

D R LaHood for Appellant (CRI-2015-409-63), and for Respondent (CRI-2014-485-52)

D A Ewen for Respondent (CRI-2015-409-63), and for Appellant (CRI-2014-485-52)

Judgment:

7 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] These appeals were consolidated and heard together because they raise the same question of law. Both Mr Miller and Mr Haunui had, it was alleged by the police, accumulated 100 demerit points or more under the Land Transport Act 1989 (LTA). The police served demerit point suspension notices. The notices must be served before they are effective. Both individuals were subsequently charged with driving while suspended.

[2] Mr Miller and Mr Haunui defended their respective charges on the ground that the suspension notices were invalid. Mr Miller advanced the further but related ground that the evidence adduced by the police to prove the charge was inadmissible hearsay. Mr Miller’s defence was unsuccessful and now he appeals against his conviction. Mr Haunui was successful and the police seek leave to appeal on a question of law against his acquittal.

Background

[3] At issue in both appeals is the meaning of s 90 of the LTA. Section 90 provides as follows:

Suspension of licence or disqualification from driving under demerit points system

(1) If, in any 2-year period, a person has accumulated a total of 100 or more demerit points, the Agency must give notice in writing advising the person that—

(a) the person has accumulated 100 or more demerit points; and

(b) the penalty specified in subsection (3) or (5) has been imposed and takes effect immediately.

(2) The notice given under subsection (1) may be served by—

(a) the Agency; or

(b) a person approved for the purpose by the Agency; or

(c) an enforcement officer.

(3) If the person holds a current driver licence, the effect of a notice given under subsection (1) is that the licence—

(a) is suspended for a period of 3 months or, if longer than 3 months, the period calculated under section 90A; and

(b) remains of no effect when the period of suspension ends until the person applies to the Agency to have the licence reinstated and the Agency reinstates the licence.

(4) A person whose driver licence has been suspended under subsection (3) may not hold or obtain a driver licence while the suspension is in force.

(5) If the person does not hold a current driver licence, the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for a period

of 3 months or, if longer than 3 months, the period calculated under section 90A.

(6) A suspension or disqualification under this section begins on the date specified in the notice, which may not be earlier than the date on which the notice is served on the person.

[4] The Land Transport Agency’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Police v Haunui and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 2456
Decision Date: 7 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals before the court concern the validity of demerit point suspension notices served by the police on two drivers, Dennis Haunui and Patrick Miller. The notices were issued under the Land Transport Act 1989 (LTA), which mandates that the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) must provide written notice to a driver who accumulates 100 or more demerit points within a two-year period. This notice must inform the driver of the accumulation of demerit points and the applicable penalty, which is a suspension or disqualification from driving. The police argued that they validly served the notices, while the drivers contended that the notices were invalid because they were not properly given by the NZTA. The court was tasked with determining whether the NZTA's process of electronically transferring data to the police for notice generation complied with the statutory requirement to "give notice in writing."

The court found that the NZTA's responsibility to "give notice" under s 90(1) of the LTA meant that the notice must be composed by the NZTA and contain all the requisite information, including the accumulation of demerit points and the immediate effect of the penalty. The court concluded that the NZTA's role was to provide the advice, while the police role was to serve the notice. The electronic transfer of data from the NZTA to the police did not constitute "giving notice" as required by the Act, because it did not include all the necessary information directly to the driver. The court rejected the argument that the notice could be considered valid if the police officer filled in the details on a template form, as this did not amount to the NZTA advising the driver of the required matters. The court also found that the police officers' evidence about the content of the notices they received from their systems was admissible, as it was reasonable to presume that the systems had functioned correctly in conveying the NZTA's data.

The court allowed Mr. Miller's appeal, setting aside his conviction due to the invalidity of the notice. The police's application for leave to appeal Mr. Haunui's acquittal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed as the court found the notice to be invalid for the same reasons. The court's decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory requirements for the validity of legal notices under the LTA.

Orders