Rush v Police - [2025] NZHC 2576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TIMARU REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE TIHI-O-MARU ROHE

CRI-2025-476-000011

[2025] NZHC 2576

BETWEEN
STEVEN CHRISTOPHER RUSH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2025

Appearances:

C A Lilley for Appellant

C J Mitchelmore for Respondent

Judgment:

5 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 September 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

RUSH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2576 [5 September 2025]

Introduction

[1] Steven Rush, aged 34 and with no previous convictions, appeals the decision of Judge Dravitzki on 26 June 20251 declining to discharge him without conviction on a charge of dangerous driving.2

The driving

[2] The following facts are taken from the police summary of facts, to which Mr Rush pleaded guilty.

[3] At midday on Wednesday 20 November 2024, Mr Rush was the driver of a heavy motor vehicle which was carrying a road roller. Mr Rush was driving north through Timaru.

[4] Mr Rush was driving in the outside of two lanes of SH1 which pass Pak’n Save in Timaru, travelling at approximately 40 kph. A driver of a Mini (referred to in this judgment as Mr M) was driving his car in the inside lane and passed Mr Rush towards the end of the passing lane. Mr M stayed adjacent to the gap between Mr Rush’s vehicle and the vehicle in front of him in preparation to merge at the end. As the lanes merged, Mr M drove into the shoulder but managed to move right into the gap. Mr Rush then followed behind Mr M extremely closely. Mr M sped up to create distance between him and Mr Rush while keeping a sufficient distance from the vehicle in front of him. Mr Rush closed the gap again to a distance considerably less than the required 16 meters required in that speed zone.

[5] As I discuss below, what happened next was subject of some contest before the Judge at sentencing.

[6] As the summary of facts recorded, Mr M slowed and braked as a precaution after seeing a dog running loose on the side of the road, and due to traffic braking ahead of him. Mr Rush crashed into the back of the Mr M’s car, shunting it forward,

1 Police v Rush [2025] NZDC 15109.
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 35(1)(b); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment or $4,500 fine. The court must order the person be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for six months or more unless the s 81 exception applies.

and then continued before hitting the car a second time. Mr Rush called the police and stated the driver of the Mini (Mr M) was being a hoon.

District Court decision

[7] Prior to sentencing, Mr Rush filed affidavit evidence in support of the application for discharge.

[8] The Judge undertook a detailed review of the facts.…

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 Rush v Police

Details

AGLC: Rush v Police [2025] NZHC 2576
Case: [2025] NZHC 2576
Decision Date: 5 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Rush appeals against his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that the District Court erred in declining to discharge him without conviction. The appeal focuses on the proportionality of the consequences of conviction relative to the gravity of the offending. The court considers whether the direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending. Rush argues that the consequences of conviction, particularly the impact on his business, are disproportionate to the low-level nature of his offending. The prosecution contends that the Judge correctly assessed the gravity of the offending as low to moderate and that the consequences of conviction are proportionate. The court examines the dashcam footage and the Judge’s findings, noting that while the offending was at the lower end of dangerous driving charges, the consequences of conviction could severely impact Rush’s business, which relies on flexible work hours and long driving periods. The court finds that the risk of Rush’s business closing is out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offending. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, and Rush’s conviction is quashed.

Orders