R v A CA45/04

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, [I T A] appeals against his conviction for two offences of dangerous driving causing injury, which was upheld by the District Court in September 2003. The appellant was acquitted of charges relating to failing to ascertain whether anyone was injured and of rendering assistance without reasonable excuse. The appellant was sentenced to nine months imprisonment on 5 November 2003. The appeal against conviction is based on three grounds: a) the Crown's failure to disclose relevant information about the complainant's convictions to the defence; b) an unfair summing up by the trial judge; and c) the jury's verdict being unreasonable or against the weight of the evidence. The appellant's submissions primarily focus on the first two grounds.

The Crown's case was that on Christmas Day 2001, the appellant was riding his motorcycle and overtaking a Mazda car on the wrong side of the road, colliding with another motorcycle ridden by Mr [C]. This resulted in Mr [C] suffering serious injuries requiring amputation and the Mazda driver sustaining minor injuries. The appellant's defence was that Mr [C] was primarily responsible for the accident, having been on the wrong side of the road and travelling at excessive speed. The jury had to reject this explanation to convict the appellant, finding that his riding was a significant cause of the injuries suffered and that it was dangerous.

The first ground of appeal concerns the police's failure to disclose the complainant's convictions to the appellant prior to the trial. The appellant's counsel had requested disclosure of any convictions of the prosecution witnesses, relevant to their credibility or character. However, the convictions, including crimes of dishonesty and driving offences, only came to light after the appellant was convicted and before sentencing. The court concluded that the failure to disclose these convictions could have had a significant impact on the cross-examination strategy for Mr [C], and thus the outcome of the trial. The court found that the Crown's argument that the appellant's credibility was of no moment and irrelevant was not convincing. The appeal must be upheld on this ground, and the convictions are quashed, with a new trial ordered.