Stott v Police - [2013] NZHC 2396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-176 [2013] NZHC 2396

BETWEEN
MARISSA JACQUELINE STOTT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	9 September 2013
Counsel:	MW Ryan for Appellant RE Savage for Respondent
Judgment:	13 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 September 2013 at 3.00 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland

STOTT v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2396 [13 September 2013]

Introduction

[1] Ms Stott pleaded guilty to one charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, contrary to s 56(1) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (the Act). She was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a fine of $500.

[2] Ms Stott appeals against conviction on the ground that she pleaded guilty only after Judge Callander ruled that the evidence of the police officer who apprehended her was admissible. She says he wrongly rejected her argument that the police officer’s evidence was inadmissible because she had been unlawfully detained. An appeal against conviction following a guilty plea may be entertained in such circumstances.1

Factual background

[3] Ms Stott was stopped by police on Bond Street, Grey Lynn at 11.15 p.m. on 3 March 2011. The following timeline of events is taken from Judge Callander’s decision:2
2315: Vehicle stopped;

2319:Breath screening test conducted. Produced a “failed general” result. Defendant required to accompany the officer to the Avondale Police station for the purpose of an evidential breath test, blood test, or both;

2321:Defendant given her Bill of Rights. She exercises her legal right to speak to a lawyer by the roadside and commences a telephone call;

2332:The defendant finishes her phone call to her lawyer and accompanies the Constable in the patrol car;

2345:Arrived at Avondale police station. Constable assembles paperwork;

2350: Defendant requested the toilet;

2355: Constable continues commencing paperwork;

0015:Defendant again given her Bill of Rights. She says she does not understand the procedure. The Constable explains;

1 R v Merrilees [2009] NZCA 59, R v Stretch [1982] 1 NZLR 225 (CA) and R v Le Page [2005] 2 NZLR 845 (CA).
2 Police v Stott DC Auckland CRN: 11004003743, 6 July 2012 at [5].

0030: Defendant again elects to speak to a lawyer; 0050: Phone call to lawyer completed;
0051: Defendant requested toilet;

0055: Defendant again requested toilet;

0056: Evidential breath test carried out;

0104: Advised of breath test result;

0106:Advice of positive evidential breath test provided to defendant. She says that she does not understand what the Constable is saying. Advice of positive evidential breath test form read to her again. Defendant reads form;

0115:Defendant again given her Bill of Rights. She again speaks to a lawyer;

0125:Telephone call to lawyer ends. 10 minute period commences; and

0137: 10 minute period ends.

District Court decision

[4] Before Judge Callander it was argued that the evidence of Constable Craig Derwyn-Roberts, who had apprehended her and had overall charge of the…

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 Stott v Police

Details

AGLC: Stott v Police [2013] NZHC 2396
Case: [2013] NZHC 2396
Decision Date: 13 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Marissa Jacqueline Stott appealed against her conviction for driving with excess breath alcohol, arguing that her guilty plea was invalid due to the alleged unlawful detention by the police officer. The central issue was whether the detention was arbitrary and in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The court examined the timeline of events to determine if the police had adhered to procedural standards and if the delays were reasonable. The judge found that while there were delays, they were justified by Ms. Stott's argumentative and non-cooperative behaviour, as well as the logistical challenges faced by the police.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the principles set out in Neilsen v Attorney-General and Auckland City Council v Larsen, which emphasize that detention is arbitrary if it lacks reasonable cause and proper procedure. The court noted that the officer's decision to take Ms. Stott to a more distant police station was reasonable and not capricious, as seen in Prasad v Police. Additionally, the court accepted the officer's testimony that the completion of the necessary paperwork was delayed due to Ms. Stott's uncooperative attitude. The court concluded that the delays did not constitute an arbitrary detention under NZBORA and that the procedural requirements were reasonably complied with.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed. The High Court upheld the District Court's decision that the evidence was admissible, and Ms. Stott's conviction and sentence stood.

Orders