Singleton v Police - [2012] NZHC 2063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-131

CRI-2012-404-137 [2012] NZHC 2063

BETWEEN SHAUN GEORGE SINGLETON Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 13 August 2012

Appearances: Z Mohamed for the Applicant
A Longdill for the Respondent

Judgment: 13 August 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:
Z Mohamed, P O Box 39119, Howick, Manukau 2145.
A Longdill, Crown Solicitor, Auckland. Email: anna.longdill@meredithconnell.co.nz

SINGLETON V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-131 [13 August 2012]

[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on questions of law. I shall detail the background shortly.

[2] The relevant provisions are ss 144(1) and (2) of the Summary Proceedings

Act 1957 which provide:

144 Appeal to Court of Appeal

(1) Either party may, with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the Court of Appeal against any determination of the High Court on any case stated for the opinion of the High Court under section 107 of this Act or against any determination of the High Court on a question of law arising in any general appeal:

Provided that, if the High Court refuses to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal may grant special leave to appeal.

(2) A party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section shall, within 21 days after the determination of the High Court, or within such further time as that Court may allow, give notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, and the High Court may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[3] It is trite law that in criminal proceedings of this type one right of general appeal is extended to all who are convicted. The provisions of s 144, however, are not designed to provide a second right of general appeal. Certainly the provision is not to be used to encourage repetition of points which have failed at lower levels.
The dictum of Thomas J in R v Slater[1] makes this clear.

[1] R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211, 215.

[4] The applicant, again in circumstances I shall describe, was unsuccessful in his appeal to Clifford J.[2] Clifford J, at the time he heard the appeal, was in Auckland dealing with the appeals list. Because he is a Wellington-based Judge the normal protocol of him dealing with this leave application cannot be followed. Hence my
presiding over this application.

[2] Singleton v NZ Police [2012] NZHC 1220.

[5] The applicant was routinely prosecuted in the Manukau District Court for driving a motor vehicle whilst the alcohol level in his breath exceeded the permitted maximum. The then alleged offending occurred in Manurewa in November 2010.…

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 Singleton v Police

Details

AGLC: Singleton v Police [2012] NZHC 2063
Case: [2012] NZHC 2063
Decision Date: 13 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Shaun George Singleton, seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on questions of law. The legal issues revolve around the sufficiency of evidence in Singleton's prosecution for driving with a breath alcohol level exceeding the permitted maximum. The key points of contention include the failure to produce a "Breath & Alcohol Procedure Sheet" (the sheet) during the hearing, the admission of hearsay evidence, and compliance with statutory requirements under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Land Transport Act 1998. The court examined these issues in detail, considering the significance of the sheet, which was used by the police officer to refresh his memory but was never formally produced in court.

The reasoning of the court centred on the sufficiency of the evidence presented, despite the absence of the sheet. The court held that the essential elements of the prosecution's case were adequately supported by other evidence. The court also noted that the points raised by Singleton's counsel were essentially procedural in nature and did not present matters of general or public importance. The High Court concluded that the threshold for leave to appeal under section 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 had not been met. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused.

Orders