Van Rensburg v Police - [2020] NZHC 1900

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000087

[2020] NZHC 1900

BETWEEN
AMBER-ELLE JANSE VAN RENSBURG

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 28 July 2020

Counsel:

HE Juran for Appellant

HD Benson-Pope for Respondent

Judgment:

31 July 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 31 July 2020 at 3.30 pm.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: HE Juran, Auckland.
Crown Solicitor, Manukau.

JANSE VAN RENSBURG v POLICE [2020] NZHC 1900 [31 July 2020]

The appeal

[1] Amber-Elle Janse van Rensburg was convicted of careless driving causing injury and failing to stop to ascertain injury.1 Judge CS Blackie disqualified her from driving for 12 months and ordered she pay $500 reparation.2 Ms Janse van Rensburg appeals conviction.

Background

[2] On 7 June 2019, Ms Janse van Rensburg was driving out of a carpark. At the exit, she realised she could not turn in the direction she wanted to travel. She stopped her car. Brandon Johnson, the complainant, was walking nearby. He saw Ms Janse van Rensburg’s car approach the exit. Accounts of what happened next differ in some respects.

[3] Mr Johnson says Ms Janse van Rensburg stopped her car across the footpath, blocking his path. Ms Janse van Rensburg says she did not block the footpath. Mr Johnson moved to walk around the back of the car. Ms Janse van Rensburg put her car in reverse. She began reversing. Mr Johnson says Ms Janse van Rensburg hit him, causing injury. Ms Janse van Rensburg acknowledges hearing a noise but says something hit her car.3

[4] Mr Johnson says he attempted to persuade Ms Janse van Rensburg to stop, but she drove away. Ms Janse van Rensburg says Mr Johnson advanced in a threatening manner, she considered herself at risk, so she drove away.

[5] Mr Johnson promptly contacted Police, sought medical attention, and attempted to find closed-circuit television footage of the incident.

[6] Mr Johnson and Ms Janse van Rensburg testified. The Judge gave an immediate, oral, decision. He carefully summarised the evidence, then found the charges proved. In relation to the first charge, the Judge said:

1      In contravention of the Land Transport Act 1998, ss 22, 36(1)(c) and 38.
2      Police v Janse van Rensburg [2020] NZDC 9009.
3      She said she believed something hit the roof.

[12] Returning to the initial charge of careless driving, as I say the standard is that of an ordinary, prudent motorist. On this particular day you could not be classed as an ordinary, prudent motorist because you were still subject to a learner’s licence, which you had had for some two years and should not really have been driving at all unless you had an approved person under the Land Transport Act 1998 accompanying you.

[13] You said that you checked your mirrors. You may have done so but not sufficiently to not notice Mr Johnson. Clearly, he would have been there. Clearly, he should have…

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 Van Rensburg v Police

Details

AGLC: Van Rensburg v Police [2020] NZHC 1900
Case: [2020] NZHC 1900
Decision Date: 31 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant Amber-Elle Janse van Rensburg appeals her conviction for careless driving causing injury and failing to stop to ascertain injury. The District Court found Ms Janse van Rensburg guilty, disqualified her from driving for 12 months, and ordered her to pay $500 in reparation. The central issue in the appeal is whether the District Court judge was correct to find Ms Janse van Rensburg guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed by Downs J.

The key legal issues in the appeal were whether the District Court judge provided sufficient reasons for preferring the complainant's evidence over Ms Janse van Rensburg's, and whether there was adequate evidence that Ms Janse van Rensburg caused the complainant's injury, that she was aware of an accident that might have caused injury, and that there was no reasonable excuse for her failing to stop. Downs J found that the extent of conflict in the accounts was overstated, and that the judge had not erred in not addressing credibility. Downs J held that the injuries were caused by Ms Janse van Rensburg, she was aware of an accident that might have caused injury, and the prosecution had excluded a reasonable possibility of a reasonable excuse for her failing to stop. The appeal was dismissed.

The court's reasoning focused on the credibility of the evidence, the injuries sustained by the complainant, and the requirements of the law regarding stopping and ascertaining injury after an accident. Downs J found that the District Court judge's reasoning adequately addressed the issues and that the appeal was without merit. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed.

Orders