Renshaw v Police - [2014] NZHC 1171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-419-000008 [2014] NZHC 1171

BETWEEN
PETER RODGER RENSHAW

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2014

Counsel:

Appellant in person
T C Tran for Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2014

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Mr Renshaw appeals his conviction for refusing to permit a specimen of his blood to be taken by a medical officer when required to do so by an enforcement officer.1

[2] I can only allow Mr Renshaw’s appeal if I am satisfied that the District Court Judge who convicted him erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, or if for any other reason, a miscarriage of justice has occurred.2

[3] Mr Renshaw accepts that he declined to allow a specimen of his blood to be taken after he gave a positive evidential breath reading at a checkpoint near Te Awamutu on 18 August 2013. Mr Renshaw explained in his submissions he was
entitled to decline to allow a blood specimen to be taken because he did not believe

1 Land Transport Act 1998, ss 60(b) and 72. Maximum penalty is three months’ imprisonment or
a fine not exceeding $4,500.
2 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232.

RENSHAW v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1171 [29 May 2014]

the person who was proposing to take the blood specimen was a medical officer. This forms the basis of Mr Renshaw’s primary ground of appeal. Mr Renshaw has also raised other grounds of appeal during the course of his submissions. I will deal with those grounds of appeal in paragraphs [20] to [22] of this judgment.

[4] I have concluded the District Court Judge made no error when he assessed the evidence and no miscarriage of justice has been established. To explain my reasons for reaching this conclusion, I shall briefly set out:

(1) the key facts;

(2) the reasons why Mr Renshaw was convicted; (3) the relevant law;
(4) why the appeal must be dismissed; (5) my conclusion.

Key facts

[5] A little after 10.00 pm on 18 August 2013 Mr Renshaw was stopped at a checkpoint at Kihikihi Road near Te Awamutu. Constable McFarlane administered a breath screening test which Mr Renshaw failed. Mr Renshaw then accompanied Constable McFarlane into a “booze bus” which was at the checkpoint. There Constable McFarlane administered an evidential breath test at 10.26 pm. That test produced a reading of 492 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath, which triggered an option for Mr Renshaw to undergo a blood alcohol test. He elected to undergo the blood alcohol test which could only be administered by a medical practitioner or a medical officer. Nurses are included in the definition of “medical officer” in the
Land Transport Act 1998.3

[6] At approximately 10.40 pm Ms Courtney was telephoned at her home and asked by the police if she could to the booze bus to take a sample of blood from Mr…

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 Renshaw v Police

Details

AGLC: Renshaw v Police [2014] NZHC 1171
Case: [2014] NZHC 1171
Decision Date: 29 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Collins J considered the appeal of Mr. Peter Rodger Renshaw against his conviction for refusing to permit a specimen of his blood to be taken by a medical officer as required by an enforcement officer. Mr. Renshaw argued that he was entitled to refuse the blood test because the person proposing to take the blood specimen was not a medical officer and did not provide documentary evidence to that effect. The court examined the key facts, reasons for conviction, relevant law, and other grounds of appeal raised by Mr. Renshaw. The court concluded that the District Court Judge made no error in assessing the evidence and no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed on the conditions that Mr. Renshaw would need to file affidavit evidence supporting his application for discharge without conviction, and the police would have an opportunity to respond. If Judge Spiller was not satisfied that Mr. Renshaw should be discharged without conviction, then the sentence he imposed would stand.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether Mr. Renshaw had a reasonable belief that the person proposing to take the blood specimen was not a medical officer, and whether the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence. The court held that Mr. Renshaw's behaviour was not reasonable because no ordinary person in the circumstances in which Mr. Renshaw found himself would seriously doubt that the person proposing to take the blood specimen was a medical officer. The court also held that the District Court Judge did not err in his assessment of the evidence and no miscarriage of justice occurred.

Orders