T v Police HC Wanganui CRI 2007-483-30

[2007] NZHC 1370

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WANGANUI REGISTRY

CRI 2007-483-30

BETWEEN  T

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Counsel:         Appellant in Person

H C Mallalieu for the Respondent

Date:              4 December 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WILD J

[1]      This appeal filed on 30 November, is against a finding by Justices of the

Peace in the District Court at Taihape on 19 October.

[2]      They found proved a charge that the appellant operated a private vehicle on a road when the vehicle was not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection.  In other words, was not displaying what most people call a warrant of fitness.  That is an offence under s34(1)(b) Land Transport Act 1998.

[3]      Mr T   accepts that he was driving a Mitsubishi 4-wheel drive utility south on State Highway 1 near Waiouru on the day in question.  This vehicle was used by him on his farm at Halcombe, near Feilding, for spraying.  He has explained to me today that the vehicle had been taken from the farm by one of his workers who had quit, absconding in the vehicle, and leaving it with some relatives at Waiouru. En route back from Hamilton Mr T   picked up the vehicle and, when he was stopped, was driving it back to his farm at Halcombe.  He says that he was stopped

because he was going too slow.  He was driving under 30 kph, which he understood

T V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WANG CRI 2007-483-30 4 December 2007

was the speed limit applicable to the vehicle if driven on a road.  He said that his understanding was that the vehicle, although it did not require a warrant of fitness, needed to comply with safety standards, which include having lights, brakes and indicators.  He said it had all of those, and subsequently was issued with a warrant of fitness without needing any mechanical work.

[4]      Mr Mallalieu, for the Police, accepts that Mr T  ’s vehicle was exempt from  the warrant  of  fitness  requirement.   But  he  contends  that  the  charge  was properly found proved because the exemption applied only to Mr T  ’s vehicle if used in connection with agricultural operations.   Mr Mallalieu says that those operations are defined in the Regulations relevantly as restricting Mr T   to driving the vehicle on a public road for a trip of not more than 21 km.  Obviously driving from Waiouru back to Halcombe was a trip of more than 21 km.

[5]      I am not satisfied that that is the correct interpretation of this somewhat complex part of the road transport legislation.  First, Mr Mallalieu accepts that Mr T  ’s vehicle was exempt from the warrant of fitness requirement, so that point is conceded.  Second, Mr Mallalieu says the charge was properly found proved because the definition of ‘agricultural operations’ restricted use of the vehicle on a public road to a trip of 21 km.   That is not my reading of the definition, which states, relevantly:

Agricultural operations means any operation concerned directly with the management of a farm; and includes the transport on a road of the produce of a farm, farm implements, stock, or other requisites of any kind whatsoever for a farm, if they are transported –

(a)       …

(b)From a farm to another farm owned or managed by the same person if the motor vehicle carrying the goods is not taken during any one trip along more than 21 km of public highway in going from the farmer’s farm or other place of garage and in returning to that farm or place.

[6]      In my view, in recovering this vehicle and taking it back to the farm Mr T   was using the vehicle for operations concerned directly with the management of the farm.  He was recovering the vehicle and returning it to the farm so it could again be used for farm work.  That is squarely within the first and primary part of the

definition.  It is unnecessary to go further into the two examples given of operations that are included within the definition.  Neither of those examples apply here.  They are addressed to repetitive operations.  Example (b) is intended to restrict repititive farm transport operations to trips of not more than 21 km in any one direction.  This was very much a ‘one off’ farming operation.

[7]      Accordingly, in the circumstances now disclosed to the Court, and they are circumstances of which the Justices may not have been aware, the charge is not made out.   The Justices’ finding that the charge was proved is quashed, as is the

$200 fine they imposed on Mr T  .

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Wanganui for the Respondent