Stewart v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-409-1 [2014] NZHC 274

SETH TE WHETUMARAMA DANIEL STEWART

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 25 February 2014

Counsel: Appellant in Person (assisted by father) S A H Bishop for Respondent

Judgment: 25 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1] Mr Stewart was convicted on 20 February 2013 of careless driving.1 He was aged 20 years at the time. It was his only offending and involved losing control of his car at the end of an orthodox passing manoeuvre. However, the weather conditions at the time were very poor.

[2] Mr Stewart was offered diversion. There was delay in completing it. In terms of court dates it seems there was an extension, then a non-appearance at which point diversion was withdrawn and a formal proof date set, and then formal proof.

[3] Mr Stewart says he did not know of the latter two dates and that was why there was no appearance. He had no opportunity to explain, and has only recently learned a conviction was entered. He had paid the fine imposed but thought he was
doing so as part of the diversion arrangement.

1

STEWART v NZ POLICE [2014] NZHC 274 [25 February 2014]

[4] There is no record to confirm Mr Stewart was advised of the last two hearings, and so the conviction cannot stand. In the circumstances I do not remit the matter back:

(a) it was Mr Stewart’s only blemish and was at the lower end of the scale, being a one-off mistake and not involving any prolonged poor driving;

(b) he has done some driving training since; (c) it is now 18 months since the incident.

[5] The appeal is allowed and the conviction quashed.

Simon France J

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Crown Solicitors, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Seth Te Whētu-Maramara Daniel Stewart against New Zealand Police concerns the conviction of Mr. Stewart for careless driving. The court was tasked with reviewing the process and circumstances that led to Mr. Stewart's conviction and whether the conviction could stand given the circumstances. Mr. Stewart, aged 20 at the time of his conviction, had lost control of his car during poor weather conditions. He was offered diversion but experienced delays and misunderstandings regarding subsequent court dates, which led to the withdrawal of the diversion offer and the setting of a formal proof date. Mr. Stewart claimed he was unaware of the latter two court dates, resulting in his non-appearance and subsequent conviction. He argued that he had only recently learned of the conviction and had been under the impression that his payment of a fine was part of the diversion arrangement.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the conviction could be sustained given the lack of record confirming that Mr. Stewart was properly advised of the last two court hearings. The court also needed to determine if the conviction should stand considering the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, Mr. Stewart's prior clean record, his subsequent driving training, and the time elapsed since the incident. The court's reasoning was grounded in the procedural fairness owed to Mr. Stewart, particularly the necessity of proper notification of court dates. Given that there was no record confirming Mr. Stewart was advised of the last two hearings, the court concluded that the conviction could not stand. The court also considered the mitigating factors of Mr. Stewart's clean record, his subsequent efforts to improve his driving skills, and the significant time that had elapsed since the incident.

In light of the above, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court noted that Mr. Stewart's conviction was his only blemish, involved a one-off mistake, and did not reflect prolonged poor driving. Additionally, Mr. Stewart had undertaken some driving training since the incident, and it had been 18 months since the event. These factors, combined with the procedural failure, led the court to decide that the conviction should not stand and that the matter should not be remitted back for further proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and the need to ensure that defendants are properly notified of court dates to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established