Turner v Police - [2019] NZHC 1382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2018-485-74

[2019] NZHC 1382

BETWEEN
RICHARD PARATA TURNER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 18 June 2019

Appearances:

C J Tennet for Appellant S Carter for Respondent

Judgment:

18 June 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] On 19 February 2018, Mr Turner failed to appear for trial before Judge Harrop in the Hutt Valley District Court for one charge of driving while suspended.1 In his oral decision dated the same day, the Judge found Mr Turner had no reasonable excuse for his absence and it was not contrary to the interests of justice to proceed without him.2 The Judge noted in a second oral decision on the same day that he had found the charge proved against Mr Turner.3 Mr Turner was later sentenced to a disqualification from driving for six months from 30 August 2018, a fine of $500 and court costs of $130.4 Mr Turner now appeals his conviction.

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3); maximum penalty of 3 months’ imprisonment and $4,500 fine.
2      Police v Turner [2019] NZDC 4321.
3      Police v Turner [2019] NZDC 4330. The transcript of this judgment is not available.
4      Police v Turner [2018] NZDC 27384.

TURNER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1382 [18 June 2019]

Background

[2] On 3 May 2017 Mr Turner was suspended from driving for three months by the police. On the evening of 24 June 2017 Mr Turner was driving his car in Upper Hutt. He was stopped at a checkpoint conducted by Rimutaka prison staff and police. He produced a photocopied driver licence.

[3] In explanation for the offending Mr Turner said he didn’t know his driver licence was suspended.

[4] Under s 118(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, a defendant must be present at any hearing he or she has been summoned to attend.

[5] The offence Mr Turner is charged with, driving while suspended, is a category 2 offence and the prosecutor was present. Pursuant to s 122 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the District Court was satisfied Mr Turner had no reasonable excuse5 and it was not contrary to the interests of justice6 the Court “may” proceed with the trial without the defendant.7 Statutory matters relevant to the interests of justice assessment relevantly include:8

(a)Any information about the defendant’s absence;

(b)Any issues the defendant indicated were disputed and the extent of those disputes;

(c)The likely length of any adjournment with reference to the interests of the victims, witnesses and their memories;

(d)The nature and seriousness of the offence; and

(e)The interests of any co-defendants.

5 Criminal Procedure Act, s 122(3).
6 Section s 122(4). 7 Section 122(3)(a). 8 Section 122(5).

[6] In assessing the interests of justice the Judge may be guided by Lord Bingham’s comments in R v Jones that the “overriding concern” is to ensure the trial “will be as fair as circumstances permit and…

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 Turner v Police

Details

AGLC: Turner v Police [2019] NZHC 1382
Case: [2019] NZHC 1382
Decision Date: 18 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Turner v Police, Mr Turner appealed his conviction for driving while suspended, arguing that the District Court erred in proceeding with the trial in his absence. The High Court found that no miscarriage of justice occurred, and dismissed the appeal. Mr Turner had been suspended from driving in May 2017 and was caught driving in June 2017. He pleaded not guilty and failed to appear at several hearings, including the trial on 19 February 2018. The Judge found Mr Turner had no reasonable excuse for his absence and that proceeding in his absence was not contrary to the interests of justice. Mr Turner argued that the Judge failed to properly consider his excuse that he was unaware of the suspension, and that proceeding in his absence was inappropriate because he was self-represented and sentencing still had to occur in his presence. The High Court found that the Judge did not err in finding no reasonable excuse, and that the potential for lengthy delays and the minor nature of the offence justified proceeding in Mr Turner's absence. The Court found no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal.

Orders