Scurr v Police HC Christchurch CRI-2010-409-000226

[2011] NZHC 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI-2010-409-000226

TODD LESLIE GRAHAME SCURR

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         17 February 2011

Appearances: Appellant appears in person

K Beaton for Respondent

Judgment:      17 February 2011

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Following an  incident  on 10  February 2010  Mr  Scurr  was charged  with operating a vehicle in a manner that caused sustained loss of traction.  He denied the allegation.  Ultimately, however, he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of careless driving.   He was convicted, fined $300, and ordered to pay court costs.   He has appealed against that conviction.

[2]      This  is  an  unusual  situation  because  Mr  Scurr  complains  that  when  he decided to plead guilty to the reduced charge he was told by the police that he would

only be liable to a fine.

SCURR V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC CHCH CRI-2010-409-000226 17 February 2011

[3]      However, because of demerit points the conviction resulted in a three month suspension.  Mr Scurr considers that the advice that he received from the police was inaccurate and that he acted to his detriment by pleading guilty.

[4]      During the hearing of the appeal was heard two possibilities were considered. First. allowing the appeal and referring the matter back to the District Court on the basis that Mr Scurr would be entitled to substitute a not guilty plea to the charge of to careless driving.  The problem with that course was that in all likelihood he would end up in the same position as he is now confronting.

[5]      The other possibility was that the appeal should be dismissed, but that I would record that Mr Scurr had told me that he had served part of the suspension and that only the balance remaining to be served would exist.   Ultimately, Mr Scurr decided to take this option.

[6]      I therefore dismiss the appeal.  But, I record that from the time Mr Scurr was served with his suspension notice (on 6 November 2010) until the order was suspended after this appeal was lodged (an unknown date in December) Mr Scurr was serving his suspension. This was for around a month.  I have no reason to doubt what he has told me and it can be verified by the record.  Thus, only the balance of the suspension remains to be served, around two months.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch