Underhill v Police - [2013] NZHC 1213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2013-404-000067 [2013] NZHC 1213

BETWEEN WAYNE UNDERHILL Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI 2013-404-000065
CRI 2013-404-000066

BETWEEN WAYNE UNDERHILL Appellant

ANDAUCKLAND TRANSPORT Respondent

Hearing: 21 May 2013

Appearances: Appellant in Person
J B Hamlin for Respondent, New Zealand Police
L M Van for Respondent, Auckland Transport

Judgment: 27 May 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 27 May 2013 at 4:15 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

UNDERHILL v NZ POLICE [2013] NZHC 1213 [27 May 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 13 February 2013, following a defended hearing held before Justices of the Peace in the Papakura District Court, two charges brought by the Police against Mr Wayne Underhill of making an unsafe lane change and failing to display a current registration label on his car were found proved. Fines of $150 and $200 respectively were imposed on Mr Underhill together with costs of $30.67.

[2] On the same day, following a separate defended hearing, two charges brought by Auckland Transport against Mr Underhill of parking his car in excess of the time limit and failing to display a current registration label on his car were also found proved. Fines of $12 and $200 respectively were imposed on Mr Underhill together with costs of $30.67.

[3] He now appeals against the imposition of the fines.

Facts

[4] At about 0610 hours on 10 May 2012, Constable Butler-Jones was riding his Police motorcycle northbound on State Highway 1. He was passing the Papakura on ramp in the outside lane. A vehicle joined the motorway from the on ramp. It initially entered the inside lane and then without any indication changed into the outside lane about two feet in front of Constable Butler-Jones’ motorcycle. Constable Butler-Jones undertook an emergency braking manoeuvre in order to prevent a collision between his motorcycle and the vehicle. He then pulled over the vehicle. It was a white 1995 Nissan Sentra, registration number TS8299, and was being driven by Mr Underhill. Constable Butler-Jones inspected the vehicle and observed that the vehicle’s registration had expired more than 28 days previously so he issued infringement notices to Mr Underhill for both the unsafe lane change and failing to display a current registration label.

[5] During the course of the defended hearing, Mr Underhill accepted the evidence of Constable Butler-Jones. He said, however, that he did apologise to the Constable and explained that his mirrors were fogged up.

[6] Two and a half weeks later, at about 1100 hours on 29 May 2012, a parking warden employed by Auckland Transport, Officer Nuku Nuku, was outside the Papakura Courthouse. There she observed a white 1995 Nissan Sentra motor vehicle, registration number TS8299, parked in a P60 parking area. She chalked the front left tyre with the time. She also observed that the car’s registration had expired. She therefore issued an infringement notice for failing to display a current registration label…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Underhill v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 1213
Decision Date: 27 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Underhill v Police involved Wayne Underhill, who appealed against fines imposed on him by both the New Zealand Police and Auckland Transport. The fines were for offenses such as making an unsafe lane change, failing to display a current registration label, parking in excess of the time limit, and operating a vehicle without a current evidence of vehicle inspection. The legal issues before the court centered on the validity of the New Zealand Government's constitutional framework and the applicability of the Land Transport Act 1998 and its regulations to Mr Underhill.

The court examined Mr Underhill's extensive arguments that questioned the constitutional validity of various New Zealand statutes, including the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 and the New Zealand Constitution Act 1952. The court found these arguments to be legally flawed, noting that there was no evidence to support the existence of a 1952 Act. The court further held that the Land Transport Act 1998 and its associated regulations were valid and applicable to Mr Underhill. The court also considered Mr Underhill's history of raising similar, unsuccessful arguments in previous cases and found that his current appeal was frivolous and vexatious. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeals and ordered Mr Underhill to pay costs to both the New Zealand Police and Auckland Transport.

Orders