Legal Research
Cases
Rayner v Police

Rayner v Police

Case [2018] NZHC 2276 30 August 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2018-463-000063

[2018] NZHC 2276

BETWEEN
KIRSTEN LEE RAYNER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 29 August 2018

Appearances:

A R Allerton for the Appellant M S Jenkins for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 30 August 2018 at 2.30 pm
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
LMC Law, Tokorua
Crown Solicitors, Rotorua

RAYNER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2276 [30 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] On 3 July 2018, Judge Hollister-Jones, in the District Court at Tokoroa, found the appellant, Ms Rayner, guilty of one charge of careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury contrary to s 38(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act).1 On the same day, the Judge sentenced Ms Rayner to 100 hours of community work and disqualified her from driving a motor vehicle for a period of six months.2

[2] Ms Rayner appeals both the conviction and the sentence, on the ground that the Judge erred both in law and in fact.

[3]The Crown opposes the appeal.

Background facts

[4] Sometime between 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm on Monday 18 September 2017, Ms Rayner was driving her Mitsubishi motor vehicle east on State Highway 5 near Tirau.

[5] Ms Rayner turned right across the westbound lane to get to her driveway. She turned into the path of an oncoming motor vehicle being driven by a Mr Charteris. Mr Charteris’ vehicle collided with Ms Rayner’s vehicle. Both were extensively damaged and Mr Charteris suffered significant injury. He had to be cut from his vehicle and he was flown to Waikato Hospital. He suffered neck injuries, broken ribs and a bruised spinal cord.

[6] In explanation, Ms Rayner stated that she did not see Mr Charteris’ vehicle when she made her decision to turn, as it was raining heavily and the sky was dark.

[7] Mr Charteris’ vehicle was grey in colour. He did not have the headlights turned on at the time of the collision.

1 New Zealand Police v Rayner [2018] NZDC 15067.
2 New Zealand Police v Rayner [2018] NZDC 15340.

The District Court’s decisions

(a)The conviction decision

[8] Judge Hollister-Jones started his oral judgment by setting out the factual background. He accepted that “the driving conditions at the time were difficult”.3 The Judge stated that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Rayner’s actions in turning her vehicle across the state highway and failing to see the victim’s vehicle “fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver”.4 He stated that the “only issue for the Court to determine in respect of the charge is whether the prosecution have proved carelessness”.5

[9] The Judge recorded that as a result of agreement between the prosecution and the defence, the prosecution evidence proceeded by way of formal statements.6 He received formal statements…

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 Rayner v Police

Details

AGLC: Rayner v Police [2018] NZHC 2276
Case: [2018] NZHC 2276
Decision Date: 30 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ms Rayner, was convicted in the District Court of one charge of careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury, and was sentenced to 100 hours of community work and disqualified from driving for six months. Ms Rayner appeals both the conviction and the sentence on the grounds that the Judge erred both in law and in fact. The Crown opposes the appeal. The High Court found that the District Court Judge did not err in applying the correct legal test for carelessness. The Judge also did not err in finding that there was no material consequence or influence on what occurred as a result of any excess consumption of clonazepam. The Judge was also entitled to conclude that Ms Rayner's decision to turn across the state highway was careless. The appeals against both conviction and sentence are dismissed.

Orders