Ritchie v Police - [2022] NZHC 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI-2021-412-000047

[2022] NZHC 494

BETWEEN
NICOLE RACHAEL RITCHIE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 February 2022

Appearances:

N M Laws for the Appellant R P Bates for the Respondent

Judgment:

18 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

Introduction

[1] The appellant (Ms Ritchie) was one of two people in a vehicle that collided with a power pole. She pleaded guilty to an excess breath alcohol charge and a charge of careless use. She subsequently sought, but was refused, leave to withdraw her guilty pleas. She was convicted and sentenced. She appeals her convictions.

Background

[2] Ms Ritchie was 25. She borrowed her uncle’s vehicle on a day she was socialising with friends and drinking heavily. On 26 May 2019 around 11.20 pm, the vehicle collided with a power pole located on the footpath on Kenmure Road, Dunedin damaging the mains cable and power pole. Ms Ritchie and another person (Ms H) had been in the vehicle. They decamped from the scene but were located by the Police a short time later.

RITCHIE v POLICE [2022] NZHC 494 [18 March 2022]

[3] Ms Ritchie was charged with careless use and driving with excess breath alcohol of 876 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. She first appeared in Court on those charges on 13 June 2019. She denied she was the driver and pleaded not guilty.

[4] On 19 July 2019 with the Duty Solicitor, Ms Ritchie entered pleas of not guilty and was remanded for a Judge-alone trial.

[5] On 30 August 2019, Ms Ritchie appeared with counsel, Ms Turner. On a second appearance of 20 September 2019, the Judge noted that a case management memorandum had been filed. In that memorandum, counsel indicated the only issue was as to whether Ms Ritchie was the driver. The Court noted that a not guilty plea was maintained.

[6] Ms Ritchie was remanded to a nominal date for a Judge-alone trial. COVID- 19 restrictions led to further remands.

[7] On 8 May 2020, after being given a sentence indication, Ms Ritchie pleaded guilty to both charges. She was remanded for sentencing and for a reparation report to be obtained. The Court did not enter a conviction at that time because her counsel, Ms Turner, indicated that an application was to be made for a discharge without conviction.

[8] On 18 June 2020, Ms Turner advised the Court that Ms Ritchie wished to vacate her guilty pleas. An application for leave to withdraw her guilty pleas was made through new counsel on 24 June 2020.

[9] The application was refused in a decision of Judge Large of 17 August 2020. Fundamental to the Judge’s decision was his noting that an affidavit sworn by Ms Turner was very limited in its scope, and no affidavit had been sworn by Ms Ritchie to provide an evidential basis to support the grounds on which she was arguing.

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 Ritchie v Police

Details

AGLC: Ritchie v Police [2022] NZHC 494
Case: [2022] NZHC 494
Decision Date: 18 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nicole Rachael Ritchie appeals against her conviction on two charges, one of which was driving with excess breath alcohol and the other careless use. The appeal is to the High Court at Dunedin. The District Court had dismissed her application to withdraw her pleas of guilty. The appeal is heard by Nation J. The appeal is based on the proposition that the refusal to allow her to withdraw her guilty pleas resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Court notes the principles that apply when determining whether there has been a miscarriage of justice. The Court analyses the evidence and submissions and considers the credibility of the witnesses, the strength of the prosecution case, the advice given to Ms Ritchie by her counsel, and the degree of pressure under which she was operating when she entered her guilty pleas. The Court concludes that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders