Ruan v Police
[2025] NZHC 1561
•13 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2025-404-000056
[2025] NZHC 1561
BETWEEN ZHEN RUAN
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 9 June 2025 Counsel:
C Chen for Appellant
L S Seybold for Respondent
Judgment:
13 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF BREWER J
This judgment was delivered by me on 13 June 2025 at 12 noon
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors/Respondent:
CJ Legal Ltd (Auckland) for Appellant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent
RUAN v POLICE [2025] NZHC 1561 [13 June 2025]
Introduction
[1] Mr Ruan appeals convictions imposed by Judge A M Manuel on 5 September 2024.1 The charges were:
(a)failing to provide a police officer with his address as required;2 and
(b)resisting arrest.3
[2]The grounds of appeal are:
a)The arrest was unlawful, rendering the resisting charge invalid;
b)Excessive force was used during the arrest; and
c)The defendant’s language barrier, environment, and confusion were disregarded.
[3] I must allow Mr Ruan’s appeals if, for any reason, a miscarriage of justice has occurred.4
The Judge’s decision
[4]The Judge set out the background:
[1] On the evening of 22 September 2023, the defendant, Mr Ruan, was riding his motorbike home along New North Road. It was close to 7.30 pm. His evening was about to go wrong.
[2] He was stopped by police officers in a marked police car. They said he was stopped because he was speeding. This led to an infringement notice being issued, in respect of which the defendant later requested a hearing.
[3] After he was stopped, he was asked to provide certain information under s 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998. He declined to provide his address. He acknowledged in evidence that this request was made, but he told the police that they should have his address in their records already. Their response was that they needed up-to-date details so that they could send the infringement notice to him at the correct address.
[4] The officer continued to insist that he provide his address. The defendant continued to decline to give it.
1 Police v Ruan [2024] NZDC 25397.
2 Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), s 52A(1)(c).
3 Summary Offences Act 1981, s 23(a).
4 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232.
[5] The officer told him he would be arrested if he did not, and that is what in fact happened. Mr Ruan was arrested. That gave rise to the first charge against him, which is one of being the driver of a vehicle stopped under the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) and, having a lawful demand by an enforcement officer to give full address, failed or refused to give such information. The charge is laid under s 52A(l)(c) of the LTA and has a maximum penalty of $1,000 fine.
[6] The second charge the defendant is facing is one of resisting arrest. This is laid under s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 (SOA) and has a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a fine of $2,000.
[7] The defendant is said to have resisted Constable De Lange, who was acting in the execution of his duty.
[8] The defendant claims he had no mens rea. He says that he pulled away from the arresting officer to try to keep his balance and that, rather than trying to keep his hand or arm away so that he could not be handcuffed by the officer, he could not move his hand or arm because of the way he was being restrained.
[9] The defendant also claims that the arrest was unreasonable and the police used excessive force. The defendant says that English is his second language, and he did not understand everything that was said. He says that he had his motorcycle helmet on and was unable to hear everything that was said.
[5] The Judge heard evidence at the trial from the two police officers involved (Constable De Lange and Constable Chan) and from Mr Ruan. It was evident to the Judge that Mr Ruan “had a good command of the English language and a reasonable understanding of the law in New Zealand”.5
[6] The Judge viewed CCTV footage of the incident (it took place at the edge of a petrol station forecourt and was in the field of view of four cameras). The Judge did not find that evidence helpful. As I will come to, Mr Chen urged me to view the footage, and I have.
[7]The Judge’s conclusions are:
[26] The defendant provided his driver’s licence but maintained that the police already had his address and he should not be obliged to provide it.
[27] Of course, he is obliged to provide it under s 114(3)(b)(i) of the LTA and he acknowledged in evidence that he was first asked for his address in the forecourt by the arresting officer.
[28] The officer told him he could be arrested if he did not provide it. This is the point at which the evening really went downhill. The officer took him
5 Police v Ruan, above n 1, at [18].
by the arm and said that he pulled away. The officer pulled the defendant off his motorbike. The officer said he was fighting against him. Both men ended up on the ground.
[29] The defendant tried to stand up, and the officer got on top of him to prevent him from doing so. He was trying to apply the handcuffs to the defendant, but the defendant’s hands or arms were under his body. The officer said that he was resisting being handcuffed. The officer got both hands out and handcuffed him with the assistance of his partner, who came running across the forecourt. She had previously been speaking to another driver.
[30] I have viewed the CCTV footage. Although I found it of limited assistance, there was nothing in the body language or interaction which suggested unreasonable or excessive use of police powers.
[31] Both officers gave evidence that the defendant resisted arrest. Constable Chang, who saw what was happening, was very clear about this.
[8] The Judge made a comment which, given the way the appeal is framed, I find apposite:
[34] At times, the hearing, which took place over nearly a full day, seemed to be framed as a contest about whether the defendant was unreasonable or whether the police were unreasonable. I decline to engage in that contest, at least certainly no more than necessary.
The appeal
[9] It is clear that Mr Ruan appeals both his convictions, but I am unsure how his grounds of appeal relate to each charge.6 The first ground of appeal, that the arrest was unlawful, is expressed to relate to the charge of resisting arrest. But, in his discussion, Mr Chen argues that s 114(6) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) was not complied with, which relates to the charge of failing to give his address. I will take it that the unlawful arrest ground of appeal relates to both charges.
(a)Charge of failing to provide address
[10]I first set out s 114 of the LTA:
(1)An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.
6 I note that Mr Chen advanced a fourth ground of appeal in written submissions, being “unreliable speed detection evidence”. This ground has no bearing on the charges to which the appeal relates and, accordingly, is not addressed in my judgment.
(2)An enforcement officer in a vehicle following another vehicle may, by displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren, require the driver of the other vehicle to stop.
(2A) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the driver of a vehicle that is stopped by an enforcement officer under this Act must remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for the enforcement officer to complete the exercise of any powers conferred, or duties imposed, on an enforcement officer by this Act.
(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—
(a)remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and
(b)on demand by an enforcement officer,—
(i)give their full name, full address, electronic address (if they have an electronic address), date of birth, occupation, and telephone number, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and
(ii)state whether or not he or she is the registered person for the vehicle; and
(iii)if the driver is not the registered person for the vehicle, give the name and address of the registered person or such particulars within the driver’s knowledge as may lead to the identification of the registered person.
(4)The driver of a vehicle that is stopped under subsection (2) is not obliged to remain stopped if the vehicle with flashing lights and siren does not itself stop in the near vicinity of the place where the driver has stopped.
(5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.
(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—
(a)failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or
(b)given false or misleading information under this section.
[11] Although not stated in the grounds of appeal, the appeal against conviction on the charge of failing to provide his address seems to be on the basis that it was unnecessary, or unreasonable, for the police to arrest Mr Ruan.
[12] Mr Chen refers to the offence being punishable by a fine only and to the Police Manual, which advises that: “You should not arrest a person if the offence is not punishable by imprisonment and there are no aggravating factors”.
[13] Mr Chen submits that Constable De Lange accepted in evidence that there were no aggravating factors and that the constable “failed to provide a clear explanation for choosing to arrest the defendant instead of issuing a summons”.
[14] Mr Chen refers to Constable De Lange’s admission in evidence that he (wrongly) believed that failure to provide an address is an imprisonable offence. He submits this belief renders the arrest unlawful.
[15] Mr Chen’s further submissions are to the effect that Mr Ruan’s actions did not give Constable De Lange “good cause to suspect”7 that Mr Ruan had refused to give his address.
[16] Mr Ruan gives as a further ground of appeal on the charge of failing to give his address that his language barrier, environment, and confusion were disregarded. Mr Chen, in his written submissions, says:
Ground 3: Language Barrier and Unfairness
Misinterpretation of Compliance
36.Mr Ruan requested an interpreter at the station.8
37.Mr Ruan struggled with legal terminology.9
38.Counsel submits the Judge wrongly relied on the officer’s subjective belief that Mr Ruan understood.10
7 Land Transport Act 1998, s 114(6).
8 New Zealand Police v Zhen Ruan, CRI-2003-004-007512 (Notes of Evidence, at page 39, lines 25–35).
9 New Zealand Police v Zhen Ruan, CRI-2003-004-007512 (Notes of Evidence, at page 38, lines 15-20; page 37, lines 2–5).
10 New Zealand Police v Zhen Ruan, above n 1, at [19].
39.Counsel submits Mr Ruan’s attempt to confirm his address via police records was not refusal—it was confusion.
[17] This ground appears to assert that there was insufficient evidence that Mr Ruan understood that he was required to give his address and that referring to police records was not sufficient to comply with the requirement.
Discussion
[18] The appeal cannot succeed. Whether or not the arrest was unlawful is irrelevant to the first charge. The offence charged was failing to provide his address. If that offence had been committed prior to the arrest, then the circumstances of the subsequent arrest could not change that.
[19] Constable De Lange’s evidence was clear that he asked Mr Ruan repeatedly for his address and warned him he would be arrested if he did not give it. Mr Ruan acknowledged in his evidence that he was asked for his address and instead he referred the constable to his driver’s licence and the details which should be available on the database.
[20] The CCTV footage shows Constable De Lange speaking to Mr Ruan for three minutes before the arrest. That period of time is consistent with the constable’s account of the exchanges between the two men.
[21] As to the ground of appeal set out at [16], the Judge saw Mr Ruan give evidence. She referred specifically to his ability to communicate in English. The issue of Constable De Lange’s dialogue with Mr Ruan about the address was squarely before the Judge. The Judge was entitled to decide that Mr Ruan knew what he was being asked and failed to comply.
[22] The Judge was entitled to find on the evidence that the charge of failing to provide his address was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
[23] The appeal against conviction on the charge of failing to give his address does not succeed.
(b)Charge of resisting arrest
[24]Section 23 of the Summary Offence Act 1981 provides:
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who resists or intentionally obstructs, or incites or encourages any other person to resist or obstruct,—
(a)any constable or any authorised officer, or any prison officer, or any traffic officer, acting in the execution of his duty; or
(b)any other person acting in aid of any such constable, authorised officer, prison officer, or traffic officer; or
(c)any Police dog working under the control of a Police dog handler.
[25] In this case, the prosecution had to prove (relevantly) that Constable De Lange was acting in the execution of his duty when he arrested Mr Ruan, and that Mr Ruan resisted his arrest.
[26] Mr Ruan’s defence at trial was that he did not resist Constable De Lange. His evidence-in-chief was:
A.After I could said “mobile phone number”, then I realised so I gave his phone number. Then he asked me for address.
Q. Yes.
A. I wasn’t, couldn’t get it first time because of helmet, because of busy traffic as well, and he said it again and I said: “I think I have my address in your police database system.” Because my bike was been stolen a couple of months ago, so it should be registered in my address.
Q. Yes.
A.But problem is my bike is bought from a while ago so I been shifting the place around so I wasn’t sure which address is it. So I just asked him: “Can you check the database?”
Q. What was his response?
A. Oh, he just not saying much, and then walk away to the car, and suddenly he turned around, dragged me out of the bike, said: “Stop resisting.” I was shocked. So, first time he hold me and drag me, so I almost lost my balance, and I tried to keep my balance. Then he put force again and I lost my balance and I falled over. Then I think he pushed me again, so I fall on the ground and then he, like, I’m not sure because he is on my back, so I already lost the balance, whether pushed me or tackled me, I’m not sure. But after that he whacked my
hand on the back and put something on my back, hold me against the ground and then my whole body weight, plus his force, using his shoulder, so I couldn’t get my hands moving around. And still I don’t know what’s going on, and I yelled: “What’s going on? Why are you arresting me?”
…
Q.Did you hear any instruction given to you by the police when you were on the ground?
A. No, I didn’t hear anything. Before he dragged me I haven’t hear anything because usually I got, he told me: “You are under arrest.” Or: “Come off your bike”, something like that. No, he just dragged me off the back.
Q.So after he placed something on the police car he didn’t say anything to you before he dragged you. Is that what you are saying?
A. Yes.
Q.When did you hear him say anything next time, when did you hear him –
A. I think last time, next time is in the police car, is asking why I’m being arrested. He said something like: “Act, section, section something”, I don't understand what is that.
Q. So, what did you respond?
A. I said: “I don't understand, what was that, what was?” He said, mentioned about some Act and then legislation. So, I was confused: “What’s the Act, what’s the difference between legislation? Can you be more specific?” He seems, he just said: “Section” something: “Section 114” something.
Q. Did you know why you were arrested?
A.No, he said: “Resisting police” at that time he, in the car he talks that I’m resisting the police. I don’t know what’s called resisting.
Q. Yes.
A. Also he said something about a law, yeah.
[27] Mr Ruan did not resile from this in cross-examination.
[28] The gist of the appeal is that the CCTV footage corroborates Mr Ruan’s account (by showing Constable De Lange using force against Mr Ruan immediately and without time for Mr Ruan to comply). Accordingly, the Judge’s decision to convict is unreasonable having regard to the evidence.
Discussion
[29] First, the evidence gave the Judge ample scope for deciding that Constable De Lange was acting in the execution of his duty when he arrested Mr Ruan. In other words, for deciding that the arrest was lawful. Constable De Lange’s evidence was clear that he asked Mr Ruan for his address and Mr Ruan did not give it. Mr Ruan’s evidence is to much the same effect. The points raised by Mr Chen go to matters not relevant to the lawfulness of the arrest. Constable De Lange had a statutory power of arrest, the prerequisite to the exercise of that power existed, and the constable then exercised the power for the purpose for which it was conferred. The Police Manual’s guidance regarding the exercise of the power in no way fetters the discretion afforded to police officers in the exercise of their statutory powers.
[30]The Crown then had to prove that Mr Ruan resisted his arrest.
[31] A person is entitled to resist (within reason) an unlawful arrest.11 That right extends to a person who mistakenly believes that he is resisting an unlawful arrest.12 If a police constable arrests a person without saying why, then resistance is not an offence. But, this case does not fall into any of those categories. Mr Ruan says he did not resist at all. He says he was taken by surprise and did not physically oppose the constables.
[32] The evidence of Constable De Lange is entirely to the contrary. In evidence-in-chief he said:
Q. You stated when you advised that he would be arrested that he refused. Can you please describe that process again for the Court.
A.When I said to him that he’s arrested? So I’m standing next to him, and then I put my hand underneath his arm, to guide him off the bike, and I said to him then: “You're under arrest”. He pulled his arm away from me and that’s when I gripped a little harder, because I didn’t want
– a motorcycle trying to avoid police is dangerous, it’s people running from police, I didn’t want that to happen, so he pulled away from me, I’ve – and he said to me: “I’m not”, and then I pulled him towards me to get him off the motorcycle.
11 Williams v Police [1981] 1 NZLR 108 (HC).
12 Clarke v Police [2016] NZHC 2168.
Q. Once you had him off the motorcycle, what did you do next?
A.I was just trying to get his hands out, so that I can put handcuffs on him and then he fell on the ground, we both fell on the ground. He has then tried to get up again and then that’s when I’ve had to move on again and got on top of him. He went down to the ground on his stomach with his hands under his body, wouldn’t bring them out, I kept telling him that, you know, you need to release your arms, you're under arrest. Eventually got his hands out and with Constable Chan, helped with that.
Q.After the defendant had been placed under arrest, what did you do with the defendant?
A. We stand him up. We put him in the back of our police car and then I spoke to him in there.
[33] Mr Chen cross-examined Constable De Lange vigorously on this issue, repeatedly showing him CCTV footage and challenging the constable’s account. The constable responded robustly.
[34] Ms Chan (at the time of the incident she was Constable Chan) also gave evidence. Ms Chan did not see the initial arrest because she was speaking to the driver of another vehicle. She ran over to assist Constable De Lange after he and Mr Ruan were on the ground. In evidence-in-chief, Ms Chan said:
Q.Just taking you back to where you stated the rider was refusing to comply with police instruction, how did he refuse to comply?
A.Constable De Lange multiple times instructed the rider to place his hands behind his back in a way where handcuffs were, you know, going to be able applied and the rider visibly did not follow that instruction by instead keeping his hands in front of his chest. So pretty much resisting arrest.
[35] Ms Chan essentially repeated her evidence in cross-examination.
[36] I have, as Mr Chen requested, viewed the CCTV footage repeatedly. I did so because of his submission that it corroborates Mr Ruan’s evidence to such an extent that it was unreasonable for the Judge to convict him on the charge of resisting arrest.
[37] First, as I have said, the footage shows that Constable De Lange spoke with Mr Ruan for three minutes before arresting him. Mr Ruan was astride his motorcycle which was resting on its stand. The police car was parked to Mr Ruan’s left rear,
almost level with the rear of the motorcycle with enough lateral distance to enable Constable De Lange to walk between the car and the motorcycle.
[38] Just before the arrest, Constable De Lange turned away from Mr Ruan and took four steps towards the police car where he placed something in the car (he said it was Mr Ruan’s driver’s licence). Constable De Lange then turned back towards Mr Ruan, took two steps and placed his right hand on Mr Ruan’s left upper arm. Mr Ruan moved off the motorcycle towards the constable (whether by being pulled or of his own volition is not apparent), seems to stagger slightly, and then pulls away from the constable who pulls back. The two, with Mr Ruan still in the constable’s grasp, stumble together rapidly across the front of the police car before falling to the ground a short distance past the police car. Six seconds elapse from the constable grasping Mr Ruan’s arm to when they go to the ground.
[39] The footage does not show clearly what happened once Constable De Lange and Mr Ruan went to the ground. It appears that the constable, soon assisted by Ms Chan, are restraining Mr Ruan. There are no signs that Mr Ruan is energetically resisting them. Neither are there any indications that the constables are using excessive force. Their arm movements suggest they are trying to apply handcuffs.
[40] I find that the CCTV footage materially corroborates Constable De Lange’s evidence of an initial resistance to being arrested. The footage neither corroborates, nor is inconsistent with, his description, and Ms Chan’s description, of what happened on the ground.
[41] I now turn to Mr Chen’s submission that, having regard to the CCTV footage, the Judge’s verdict of guilty was unreasonable.
[42] A verdict will be unreasonable if, having regard to all the evidence, a judge (in this case) could not reasonably have been satisfied to the required standard that the defendant was guilty. The test is whether the verdict reached was in fact reasonably available on the evidence, allowing for the fact that the weight given to individual pieces of evidence is essentially a decision for the judge and that reasonable minds may disagree on matters of fact.
[43] In this case the Judge was entitled to accept the evidence of the police officers and reject the evidence of Mr Ruan. The Judge found the CCTV footage of limited assistance but commented that it did not suggest unreasonable or excessive use of police powers. I would go further and say that the footage corroborates Constable De Lange’s account of initial resistance by Mr Ruan.
[44] The appeal against conviction on the charge of resisting police does not succeed.
Decision
[45]The appeals against conviction are dismissed.
Brewer J
0