T v Police HC Wellington CRI 2008-485-78

[2008] NZHC 1540

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI 2008-485-78

T

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         30 September 2008

Counsel:         M Dixon for the Appellant

M W C Snape for the Respondent

Judgment:      2 October 2008

JUDGMENT OF SIMON FRANCE J

[1]      Ms T   was convicted before 2 Justices of the Peace of failing to give way to a vehicle when required to do so.

[2]      It seems common ground that Ms T   was in a car which had turned onto a main road.   The main road had a waiting area in the centre of the road whereby cars could turn into it, and then wait there before merging left into the travelling traffic.  Ms T  ’s car had come into contact with a car that was in that left lane and travelling along it.  The allegation was that she pulled out into the

car.  Ms T   says that that car veered into the waiting bay and hit her.

T V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WN CRI 2008-485-78 2 October 2008

[3]      At the hearing, the prosecution called evidence from the driver of the car that was hit, from the driver of a car who was travelling behind the car that was hit, and from a Police Officer who attended the scene of the accident.

[4]      Ms T   acted for herself.  She cross examined those persons and then gave evidence.   She herself was cross-examined and then the matter proceeded to submissions.   The decision of the Justices of the Peace was that the charge was proved.

[5]      Ms T   appeals.  Counsel now acting for her advises that Ms T   feels she was disadvantaged by her lack of familiarity with the procedures.   In particular she wished to introduce some photographic evidence but did not do so at the appropriate time and then was prevented from doing so when she attempted to produce the photos during submissions.  The photographs relate to the scene of the accident, and are photographs that Ms T   took the following day.   She considers that they better illustrate the scene than the photograph produced by the Police, that they show some fragments of indicator light in the holding lane rather than in the left lane and that her submissions would have been better understood were the photographs introduced.  She also wished to produce a diagram reflecting her view as to what happened.  The Justices saw the diagram but it was not admitted in evidence.

[6]      Ms Dixon advises that she was present in Court for the hearing, as she was waiting for a later case on which she was acting.  Ms Dixon advises it was plain that Ms T   was struggling to cope.  For the appeal Ms Dixon provided the Court with the photographs and diagram in issue.

[7]      Concerning the diagram I accept it clarifies Ms T  ’s position.  If it is an accurate reflection of what she is saying, then Ms T   claims the accident happened as she turned into the holding bay.  The diagram depicts a clash of vehicles at that point with the complainant’s car about half way across the line dividing the two lanes.

[8]      The photographs that might have been produced would not alter the essential evidence.  They were taken the day after.   The position on the following day of a piece of glass cannot assist in saying whether the glass was in the same position the day before, even assuming that it is a relevant fact.  There is no evidence to suggest that if the accident happened as the prosecution alleged, the glass might not anyway have flown into the holding lane.

[9]      The  prosecution  was  supported  by  an  independent  witness  who  saw  the event.  Having read the transcript myself, I see no basis at all on which the Court on appeal could disagree with the conclusions of the Justices of the Peace as regards the reliability of the witnesses’ recollection  and  accordingly as  regards  whether  the prosecution was proved.  The diagram might have been of assistance, but the essence of the dispute was clear.  The diagram is not independent evidence but a pictorial view of Ms T  ’s account.  To that extent it has no independent value.

[10]     Accordingly the appeal must be, and is, dismissed.

Simon France J

Solicitors:

M Dixon, Barrister, 60A Courtenay Place, Wellington
Luke, Cunningham & Clere, PO Box 10 357, Wellington, email: [email protected]