Sumicz v Police - [2020] NZHC 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CRI 2019-012-965

[2020] NZHC 229

UNDER the Criminal Procedure Act 2011

BETWEEN

ANNE-MARIE SUMICZ

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 14 February 2020

Counsel:

N M Laws for Appellant R D Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

20 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Anne-Marie Sumicz is a bus driver in Dunedin. She is charged with careless driving causing injury.1 This charge arose from an incident in which a pedestrian (the complainant) was injured after a collision with Ms Sumicz’s bus. The principal issue is whether the prosecution is required to specify particulars of the alleged carelessness.

[2] The issue comes before this Court as an appeal from pre-trial rulings in the District Court declining to order the prosecution to provide particulars and declining to dismiss or stay the charge.2 The questions of law in the notice of appeal are:

(a)Question 1: Was the Judge correct to conclude that the charging document adequately informs Ms Sumicz of the substance of the charge

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 38.
2 Police v Sumicz [2019] NZDC 22767.

SUMICZ v POLICE [2020] NZHC 229 [20 February 2020]

she faces, and otherwise complies with s 17 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the CPA)?

(b)Question 2: Was the Judge correct to conclude that the charge of careless driving is one of broad compass and it is not necessary to show negligence which requires particularisation of the allegations being made, and that providing specific details of the manner in which it is said Ms Sumicz drove carelessly is not required or helpful?

(c)Question 3: Did the Judge err in concluding as a matter of law that there was some evidence to establish carelessness and that the carelessness caused the complainant’s injuries?

[3] The appeal requires leave.3 Leave is not opposed. I grant leave in part because clarification, if any is needed, on what particulars are required on a charge of carelessness would have general relevance. Additionally, if Ms Sumicz’s arguments are correct, it may result in dismissal of the charge against her. It therefore has importance for her.

The charge

[4]The relevant details in the charging document are as follows:

Date of offence: On the 27th of February 2019

Offence location: At Dunedin

Offence description: Operated a vehicle on a road namely the Octagon, Dunedin carelessly and thereby caused injury to [the complainant]

Legislative reference: Land Transport Act 1998 Section 38

The summary of facts4

[5] At about 3.40 pm on 27 February 2019 Ms Sumicz was driving the bus through the central carriageway in the Octagon, Dunedin in a northerly direction. There was

3 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 296.
4 The alleged facts set out under this heading came from an amended summary of facts provided to Ms Sumicz on 18 July 2019.

moderate to heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area. It was not raining and visibility was…

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 Sumicz v Police

Details

AGLC: Sumicz v Police [2020] NZHC 229
Case: [2020] NZHC 229
Decision Date: 20 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anne-Marie Sumicz, a bus driver, appeals against a District Court decision to decline her applications for the prosecution to provide particulars of her alleged carelessness and to dismiss or stay the charge against her. The charge arises from an incident in which a pedestrian was injured after a collision with Ms Sumicz’s bus. The appeal requires leave. Leave is granted in part because clarification, if any is needed, on what particulars are required on a charge of carelessness would have general relevance. Additionally, if Ms Sumicz’s arguments are correct, it may result in dismissal of the charge against her. It therefore has importance for her. The appeal is dismissed. The proceeding is referred back to the District Court for a case review. The District Court was correct to hold that the charge should not be dismissed under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) and that a stay would not be appropriate. The prosecution was acting in accordance with the established legal position by initially declining to provide particulars. In any event, Ms Sumicz has been aware of the case she has to respond to from at least 18 July 2019 when the amended summary of facts was provided to her.

Orders