Rangihika v Police - [2017] NZHC 1031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2017-470-9 [2017] NZHC 1031

BETWEEN
DAVID NGATAI RANGIHIKA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 May 2017

Appearances:

Appellant on own behalf
S Davison for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 May 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Tauranga
Copy to: Appellant

RANGIHIKA v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1031 [18 May 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rangihika was found guilty of one charge of driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent conviction) on 8 February 2017 following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Tauranga. Mr Rangihika appeals his conviction on the basis that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.

District Court decision

[2] Judge Harding summarised the evidence against Mr Rangihika as follows:1

[3] There is no doubt that on 25 April 2016 Mr Rangihika was driving a motor vehicle on Cameron Road. He acknowledges that in a s 9 agreement produced to the Court at an early stage. …

[4] Sergeant Ramsden, whose evidence was largely unchallenged, was the police officer concerned. He was in a marked patrol car in full uniform and he used the usual and familiar checklist which has been produced. His evidence was that he stopped Mr Rangihika, who acknowledged who he was, as a result of him going through a stop sign at a little after two in the morning. He required a breath screening test and administered that. That indicated the presence of alcohol. According to the record Mr Rangihika acknowledged he had a couple of beers.

[5] He required Mr Rangihika to accompany him to the police station and provided Bill of Rights advice at the police station. After the Bill of Rights advice was repeated and no lawyer was sought, an evidential breath test was conducted and the result was 924. Mr Rangihika was advised of the results of that test.

[6] He elected blood and in due course a nurse, Mrs Church, arrived and took a sample of blood from his vein. Using the appropriate documentation she recorded that. Having used the approved blood specimen collecting kit, [she] handed the two vacutainer results and the documentation to Sergeant Ramsden, who arranged for its conveyance to ESR with tracking records. It was received at ESR and analysed with a certificate produced by an authorised analyst, Mr Hosking, who has been called to give evidence certifying that on analysis the proportion of 203 plus or minus 11 was found to be the proportion of alcohol in the blood. He was able to say with 99.9 percent plus probability, that the proportion of alcohol in the blood specimen was greater than 80 milligrams per hundred millilitres. There was no deterioration or congealing to prevent proper analysis.

[3] Judge Harding also addressed three issues which had been raised by
Mr Rangihika for consideration. As each of these points has been raised again on appeal, I will not set them out in any detail here. It is sufficient to say the Judge 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 Rangihika v Police

Details

AGLC: Rangihika v Police [2017] NZHC 1031
Case: [2017] NZHC 1031
Decision Date: 18 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Ngata Rangihika appeals his conviction of driving with excess blood alcohol (third or subsequent conviction) on the basis that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The District Court found Mr Rangihika guilty on the basis of a blood alcohol content of 203 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. Mr Rangihika submits that the appeal should be allowed on eight grounds. The appeal was dismissed by Gordon J. The Court found that there was no undue delay in bringing the case to trial. The Court held that the amendment of the charge was not unfair to Mr Rangihika and that he could have sought independent analysis of the blood sample. The Court held that there was no prejudice to Mr Rangihika in the failure to show him the breath screening result. The Court held that the failure to elect a blood test within 10 minutes of being advised of the breath test result was not material. The Court held that the nurse was able to sufficiently identify Mr Rangihika and that the test result was sufficiently precise. The Court held that there was no merit in Mr Rangihika's submission that the analytical methods employed by ESR were flawed. The Court held that the prosecution was not required to prove at trial that Mr Rangihika had been previously convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol.

Orders