Rogers v Police - [2018] NZHC 2221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CRI-2018-441-000019

[2018] NZHC 2221

BETWEEN
CLIFFORD TREVOR ROGERS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2018 (via AVL at Wellington)

Counsel:

W R Hawkins for Appellant C C Gullidge for Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Two issues require determination in this appeal from a decision of Judge Adeane in which he found Mr Rogers guilty of driving a motor vehicle in circumstances where his blood contained evidence of the use of methamphetamine.1

[2]The two issues are:

(1)Did the Judge err in the way he applied the standard and burden of proof? and/or

(2)Did the Judge fail to properly consider Mr Rogers’ evidence?

1 Police v Rogers [2018] NZDC 15132.

ROGERS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZHC 2221 [28 August 2018]

Background

[3] On 17 September 2017, Mr Rogers was driving a large truck on State Highway 2 near Hastings. He failed to navigate a gentle curve in the road and crashed his truck into a fence.

[4] Mr Rogers was taken to hospital, where a sample of his blood was taken pursuant to s 73 of the Land Transport Act 1998. That sample was analysed by the ESR and found to contain methamphetamine, a controlled drug listed in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[5] Mr Rogers was charged under s 58 of the Land Transport Act, the relevant provisions of which state:

58 Contravention of section 12

(1)A person commits an offence if the person drives … a motor vehicle on a road—

…

(b) if the person’s blood, as ascertained from an analysis of a blood specimen … contains evidence of the use of a controlled drug specified in Schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

[6] It was accepted by Mr Hawkins, counsel for Mr Rogers, that the ESR analysed Mr Rogers’ blood and determined there was methamphetamine in his blood at the time he drove his truck.

[7] Mr Rogers gave evidence at his trial. He said that he has never consumed methamphetamine and that on the previous day, he had spent several hours cleaning a motel unit that was suspected of having been contaminated by methamphetamine. The implication that Mr Rogers asked the Judge to draw was that methamphetamine entered his bloodstream without his knowledge when he was cleaning the motel unit the previous day.

[8] Judge Adeane recorded that the prosecution had proven Mr Rogers drove the truck and that his blood in fact contained methamphetamine. He said that once those two matters were proven, “the Court would need some evidential basis on which to

hold that Mr Rogers could avoid responsibility for the charge”. He dismissed Mr Rogers’ evidence as being “self-serving” and said that he would expect better evidence of exculpatory circumstances if they existed. Judge Adeane accordingly held the charge had been proven. The Judge fined Mr Rogers $600 and disqualified…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rogers v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 2221
Decision Date: 28 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rogers v Police involves an appeal against the conviction of Clifford Trevor Rogers, who was found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while his blood contained evidence of methamphetamine use. The appeal was heard by Collins J in the High Court of New Zealand, Napier Registry. The central issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in the application of the standard and burden of proof, and whether the trial judge adequately considered the appellant's evidence.

The first issue concerned the interpretation of section 58(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998, which pertains to driving under the influence of a controlled drug. The appellant argued that the statute implied a requirement for voluntary consumption of the drug, thereby introducing a mens rea element into the offence. However, the court found that the statutory language and its purpose did not necessitate proof of voluntary consumption or knowledge. Instead, the court concluded that the provision creates a strict liability offence, meaning that the prosecution only needed to establish evidence of drug use through blood analysis. Once this was proven, the burden shifted to the appellant to demonstrate an absence of fault on a balance of probabilities.

The second issue addressed the trial judge's evaluation of the appellant's evidence. The appellant claimed that he had unknowingly ingested methamphetamine while cleaning a motel unit. The court found that while the appellant's evidence was self-serving, the lack of corroboration significantly diminished its credibility. Furthermore, there was no scientific evidence to support the appellant's claim that methamphetamine could have entered his bloodstream through cleaning a contaminated site. The court ultimately determined that the appellant had not sufficiently discharged the burden of proving an absence of fault.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The prosecution successfully demonstrated that the appellant drove under the influence of methamphetamine, and the appellant failed to prove an absence of fault.

Orders