Rayner v Police - [2014] NZHC 2857

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2014-441-33 [2014] NZHC 2857

BETWEEN
ADAM PHILIP RAYNER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 12 November 2014

Counsel:

SM Lott for appellant
M Mitchell for respondent

Judgment:

17 November 2014

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

Solicitors: Souness Stone Law Partnership, Hastings
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Napier

Rayner v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2857 [17 November 2014]

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Background ............................................................................................................[2]

The District Court decision ....................................................................................[7] Summary of grounds advanced in support of the appeal .......................................[8] Approach to appeal ................................................................................................[9]
Submissions................................................................................................................
Appellant’s submissions [16]
Respondent’s submissions [22] Relevant law .........................................................................................................[23] Discussion ............................................................................................................[27]

Introduction

[1] Mr Rayner appeals his conviction on one charge of dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Background

[2] On 9 January 2014, Mr Rayner was riding a three wheeled motorised trike on Haumoana Beach. He was towing a trailer with two friends riding in the trailer. Ms Hamilton was walking on the beach with her eight and a half months old miniature fox terrier dog, Rosie. Rosie was not on a leash as the beach was an off leash area. Mr Rayner’s trike ran over Rosie and she unfortunately died as a result.

[3] Mr Rayner was charged with dangerous driving, an offence against s 35 Land

Transport Act 1998.

[4] Ms Hamilton did not contact the police immediately. She says she was triggered into action by TV News reporting on that weekend about quad bikes speeding out of Waimarama. She spoke first to a member of the media who asked

her if she was going to the police. She said she advised that she had made up her mind to go to the police and advised the media person that she would be doing that. This all took place five days after the incident. That had the consequence that the police were not able to attend immediately on the accident scene and collect precise details as to vehicle track and marks as to braking and other signs that would assist in establishing relevant matters pertaining to the incident. There is, in the evidence presented to the District Court, no precise examination of the accident scene as a result.

[5] The parties accept that the part of the beach where the incident occurred is a road for the purposes of the Land Transport Act. Although not known at the time, it was common ground that there were signs which advised that the maximum speed on the area of the beach where the incident occurred was 20 kms per hour.

[6] The accounts of this incident vary. I will comment on that aspect later in this judgment.

The District Court decision

[7] Judge Down gave an oral judgment on 3 July 2014 after concluding a judge alone trial on that day. He recorded a number of areas in the evidence where the defence and the prosecution were not in agreement. He recorded that though there were these disagreements, they did not cause…

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 [2014] NZHC 2857
Case: [2014] NZHC 2857
Decision Date: 17 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adam Philip Rayner appeals his conviction for dangerous driving under s 35(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998, following an incident on Haumoana Beach where his trike ran over and killed a dog. The District Court found Mr Rayner guilty and disqualified him from driving for six months, ordering him to pay reparation to the dog's owner. The High Court's task was to determine if the District Court erred in its assessment of evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The appellant argued that the court erred in its reliability assessment of the witnesses and in the weight given to their evidence. The respondent contended that the judge's preference for certain evidence over others did not constitute an error warranting the quashing of the conviction. The High Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish the speed at which Mr Rayner was travelling or whether his driving was objectively dangerous. The court also highlighted the absence of precise measurements and examination of the accident scene due to the delay in reporting the incident. As a result, the High Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders