R v Grace - [2020] NZHC 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2019-485-68

[2020] NZHC 687

BETWEEN
THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND

RUTENE ETHAN GRACE

Respondent

Hearing: 17 December 2019

Counsel:

M L Wong for Appellant D A Ewen for Respondent

Judgment:

3 April 2020

Reissued:

21 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] Mr Grace, during a police chase, drunkenly drove down the wrong side of State Highway 1 (SH1) in Porirua. No-one was hurt. Mr Grace was subsequently charged with endangering transport under s 270 Crimes Act 1961 (the 1961 Act).1 The maximum penalty under s 270 is 14 years’ imprisonment. In the District Court, Judge Hastings amended the charge to one of reckless driving.2 The maximum penalty for reckless driving is three months’ imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $4,500.

[2] The Judge gave comprehensive reasons for his view that the endangering transport offence elements were not met in Mr Grace’s case. But there is a divergence

1 Mr Grace was also charged with—and pleaded guilty to—a charge of aggravated failing to stop under s 52A(1)(a)(ii) and (3) of the Land Transport Act 1998 [LTA] and to a charge of driving without an appropriate driver licence under s 31(1)(a)(ii) of that Act.
2 R v Grace [2019] NZDC 19070; and ss 7(1) and 35(1)(a) LTA.

R v GRACE [2020] NZHC 687 [3 April 2020]

of views on this issue in the District Court. The Solicitor-General has therefore sought to appeal the decision on two questions of law:3

(a)Did Judge Hastings err in law by determining that driving the wrong way down a motorway could not constitute endangering transport under s 270 of the 1961 Act?

(b)As a result, was the Judge mistaken in allowing Mr Grace’s application to amend the charge from endangering transport to reckless driving?

[3] There is no dispute that there is a wider public interest in this matter and no opposition to the Solicitor-General bringing the appeal. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.

THE DECISION IN THE DISTRICT COURT

[4]It is convenient to set out s 270 at the start:

270 Endangering transport

(1)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who, with intent to cause danger to persons or property or with reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property,—

(a)interferes with any transport facility; or

(b)does anything to any transport facility that is likely to cause danger to persons or property.

(2)For the purposes of this section, transport facility means any vehicle, ship, or aircraft, and any property used in connection with the transportation of persons or goods; and includes equipment of any kind used in navigation or for the guidance of any vehicle, ship, or aircraft.

[5]Mr Grace was charged under subs (1)(a). The charge was that he:

With reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property, did interfere with a transport facility, namely SH1.

3 Section 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 provides that the prosecutor…

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 R v Grace

Details

AGLC: R v Grace [2020] NZHC 687
Case: [2020] NZHC 687
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grace was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry. The appellant, The Queen, sought to appeal a decision of the District Court that Mr Grace's driving down the wrong side of State Highway 1 did not constitute the offence of endangering transport under s 270 of the Crimes Act 1961. Instead, the District Court found that Mr Grace's driving was reckless and constituted the lesser offence of reckless driving. The Crown sought to appeal on two questions of law: (a) whether the District Court Judge erred in law by determining that driving the wrong way down a motorway could not constitute endangering transport under s 270 of the 1961 Act; and (b) whether, as a result, the Judge was mistaken in allowing Mr Grace's application to amend the charge from endangering transport to reckless driving. The Court found that there was no error in the District Court Judge's decision. The Court held that driving down the wrong side of a motorway did not constitute "interfering with" a transport facility within the meaning of s 270(1)(a). However, it was found that Mr Grace's conduct did constitute interfering with other vehicles on the road, contrary to s 270(1)(a), and doing something to—endangering or doing an act likely to interfere with—other vehicles under s 270(1)(b). These conclusions were consistent with the legislative history and purpose of the provision. The Court confirmed the District Court's decision to amend the charge to reckless driving.

Orders