W v Police HC Auckland CRI-2009-404-308

[2009] NZHC 2528

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2009-404-308

W

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         16 December 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

Ms A Longdill for Crown

Judgment:      16 December 2009

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against order]

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:

Mr R W  , Pokeno, South Auckland

W V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2009-404-308  16 December 2009

[1]      Mr W   appeals against an order made in the District Court requiring him to pay a fine for speeding.   The Justices of the Peace made the order after Mr W   defended a charge of driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding 50 kph.   The Justices found the charge proved and ordered Mr W   to pay the fine as a consequence.

[2]      Mr W   advances his appeal on two bases.   The first is that he did not receive a proper bill based on an enforceable contract for the fine that the Justices imposed.  As I advised Mr W   during the hearing, this is not a case involving a civil contract.  It is a case under the criminal law.  Mr W   has been charged under s 40 of the Land Transport Act 1998, Regulations 3 and 4 of the Offences and Penalties Regulations 1999 and Rule 5.1(1) of the Road User Rules 2004.  Common law notions and issues such as the law of contract have no part to play in the criminal code.

[3]      Mr W  ’s second complaint is that no plaintiff appeared to plead its case against him.  As I endeavoured to explain to Mr W   during the hearing, a criminal proceeding  does  not  have  a  plaintiff.    The  proceeding  is  commenced  by  an informant, who may be any police constable.  Once again, the concept of a plaintiff arises in civil branches of the law and has no application in the criminal law.

[4]      Mr  W    candidly  accepts  that  he  was  the  person  who  was  driving  the vehicle on the date in question.  He also accepts that he was speeding at the time that a police officer stopped him and issued him with the infringement notice.

[5]      That being the case, there is no defence to the charge.   The Justices were correct when they found the charge proved.

[6]      The appeal against the order is accordingly dismissed.

Lang J