Underhill v Police

[2014] NZHC 2556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2014-404-000104 [2014] NZHC 2556

BETWEEN

TYRONE WAYNE UNDERHILL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	20 October 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in person M R Walker for Respondent
Judgment:	20 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

This judgment is delivered by me on 20 October 2014 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

..................................................... Registrar / Deputy Registrar

UNDERHILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2556 [20 October 2014]

[1]      This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to a speeding infringement.

[2]      On 2 August 2012, a Mitsubishi car registered in the name of the appellant was captured on a speed camera exceeding the speed limit.  An infringement notice imposing a fine of $80 was issued to the appellant.  The fine was not paid and so a reminder notice was  issued on 17 September 2012.    No hearing was  requested pursuant to s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[3]      Over a year later, on 9 October 2013, the appellant filed an application under s 78B of the Act which empowers a District Court Judge or Registrar to correct irregularities in proceedings for infringement notices.   The appellant’s application was based on his contention that he transferred ownership of the Mitsubishi to his father in December 2011, although the change was not registered until 13 June 2013. He claims that his father was driving at the time and he wanted the fine transferred to him.    The  Registrar  declined  the  application  on  the  basis  that  there  was  no irregularity in the procedure that had been followed and therefore no basis for the appellant’s application under s 78B.

[4]      The appellant sought a review of this decision to a District Court Judge pursuant to s 106F of the Act. The Registrar’s decision was upheld.

[5]      The appellant then appealed to this Court.   The appeal was dismissed by Simon France J on the basis that there was no merit in the appeal and no jurisdiction for such an appeal.1

[6]      The appellant now applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this decision.

[7]      The application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.  First, there was no jurisdiction to appeal to this Court from the decision of the District Court Judge.  It follows that there is no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Second, there is no

merit in the appeal.  It is clear that the appellant’s application to the Registrar under

1      Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 1367.

s 78B had to be declined because no irregularity in the process was identified.  The decision of the District Court Judge declining the review of the Registrar’s decision was correct.  Third, there is no question of general or public importance involved in this case that could justify a further appeal.

[8]      I agree with Simon France J that if the appellant’s real concern is that his father should pay the fine rather than him, there is nothing to prevent this.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.

M A Gilbert J