Scobie v Police

[2013] NZHC 2629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-409-82

[2013] NZHC 2629

RUSSELL HAROLD FARLEY SCOBIE

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

9 October 2013

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

S Jamieson for Respondent

Judgment:

9 October 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1] This is an appeal by Mr Scobie against a decision of two Justices of the Peace, finding that he operated his vehicle carelessly on 5 March 2013. He was fined $600.

[2]  Mr Scobie appeals on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient to justify this finding that he was careless. Mr Scobie had been driving his Isuzu mobile home vehicle on Oxford Road, approaching an intersection. He was following a Toyota Land Cruiser which was pulling a trailer. At relatively low speeds, Mr Scobie’s vehicle impacted into the right side of the Land Cruiser, pushing it off the intersection into a ditch. No one was injured.  The Land Cruiser receiving moderate to extensive damage, and Mr Scobie’s mobile home receiving minor frontal damage.

[3] The two Justices of the Peace heard a number of witnesses. They first heard from the driver of the Toyota Land Cruiser, whose name was Mr Phillips.  He was a

SCOBIE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2629 [9 October 2013]

builder. He said he was coming down the road and intending to turn right into Plasketts Road. That he saw Mr Scobie’s vehicle, which he described as a bus coming behind him. That he thought he would be off Oxford Road before it reached him. That is really all he remembers until the car was in a ditch.

[4] Mr Scobie cross-examined Mr Phillips putting his side of the story. He had some difficulties with the cross-examination technique, and was interrupted a fair bit by the Justices of the Peace. But the main evidence of Mr Phillips is he saw the car coming from behind, the next minute he was in the ditch. He was not really able to help a great deal on the detail.

[5]      Mr Jeffries was called to give evidence.  He was coming the other way.  He is a share milker. He said that he thought Mr Phillips car was going to turn right. He said he could not see whether he was actually indicating, but he was very aware that this other car was going to turn right. Then he saw the other vehicle, which is Mr Scobie’s vehicle, “it seemed to go into the side of it and come across in front of me”. He was asked some questions as to where Mr Phillips’ car was. He said, “Like, he was in the middle of the road. Like against the line on his side you know, but yeah, sort of not right in the middle of his lane.”  That evidence is a little vague. I think the most significant part of his evidence is that he had formed the judgment that the car he was looking at, which we know to be Mr Phillips car, was going to turn right.

[6]  It was Mr Scobie’s evidence that the car he was following, which we know was Mr Phillips’ vehicle, was right over onto the left hand side of the road, indeed with some of the tyres right on the edge of the sealed verge. Mr Scobie, who is a very experienced driver who has driven for a living, anticipated that he would pass this car he was following, this Land Cruiser and trailer, before the intersection. He did not see any indicating lights. He only saw one indicator light go just before the crash. He found the car was turning right. Mr Scobie says he braked before the car went over to the right hand side, but was unable to stop before the intersection. The point I was really making is, although the speeds were not fast and braking was going on, the collision occurred.

[7] The Justices of the Peace delivered an oral judgment. Going through the evidence in a similar fashion to what I have done. Without making a clear finding as to whether they preferred Mr Phillips’ evidence to Mr Scobie’s, the ended the judgment with this paragraph:

Looking at the charge of careless use, it is the responsibility of the driver behind to expect the unexpected. We feel in this instance Mr Scobie failed the test. Mr Phillips was in the centre of the road beside a white line and his intentions could well have been anticipated...

I note here that in this finding of fact the Justices of the Peace were essentially relying on the evidence of Mr Jeffries.

[8]      Then they finish with this sentence:

...Exercising the degree of care and attention that a reasonable prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances was not done in this case by Mr Scobie and we find the charge proven.

[9]  Mr Scobie clearly believes that this is an unjust decision, and that is why he has appealed. He is also concerned that he is not insured.

[10] I have explained to him that this finding by the Justices of the Peace, that he was careless, is not a finding in Mr Phillips favour, saying that Mr Phillips was not careless. The question of whether Mr Phillips was careless or not was simply not placed by the police before the Justices of the Peace. Mr Phillips was not prosecuted, so far as I am aware.

[11] Having heard the story again from Mr Scobie, and with the benefit of submissions from Ms Jamieson, I think that Mr Scobie has been caught, as it were, by the law, which imposes a greater duty of care on persons following cars than on the drivers in front. In other words, when you are behind a car and commencing a manoeuvre, you have, as the Justices of the Peace said, got to be prepared to expect the unexpected.

[12] For these reasons, I do not think that the Justices of the Peace have made any mistake in the law, and that they were entitled to rely on the evidence of Mr Jeffries.

For these reasons, I do not think I can disturb the decision.  Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

Copy to:
R Scobie, Christchurch