Warren v Police - [2014] NZHC 2258

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CRI-2014-406-7 [2014] NZHC 2258

CHRIS MURRAY WARREN

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 19 August 2014

Counsel:

Appellant in person
A Mills for Respondent

Judgment:

17 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] Chris Warren was found guilty on 19 February 2014 of driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding 100 km/hr following a hearing before Justices of the Peace B H Pitts and C G Bristed, in the Blenheim District Court.1 He was fined $80 and ordered to pay court costs of $30.

[2] Mr Warren appealed against this finding in the District Court. Judge Zohrab heard the appeal on 1 July 2014 and dismissed it.

[3] Mr Warren now appeals to the High Court. The grounds of his appeal are that:

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 40; Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999, regs 3 and 4; Land Transport (Road User Rule) 2004, r 5.1(1).

WARREN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2258 [17 September 2014]

(a) the police did not comply with their obligations under s 14 of the

Criminal Disclosure Act 2008; and

(b) the Justices of the Peace erred in fact and law.

Factual background

[4] On 29 July 2013 at around 2.20 pm, the defendant was driving a motorcycle on State Highway 1 towards Blenheim. Senior Constable Parkinson was travelling south of Ward towards the Mercer Stream and sighted the motorcycle coming around a corner. Senior Constable Parkinson claims to have locked a radar on the defendant travelling at 111 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone. Mr Warren says he was travelling at
90 km/hr before the corner. The constable travelled on until he was able to U-turn and followed and stopped the motorbike a couple of minutes later south of Ward. On stopping the vehicle the constable asked for the defendant’s licence, issued an infringement notice and following a request showed the locked-on speed to the defendant. The defendant later disputed that speed.

Oral judgment of the Justices of the Peace2

[5] The Justices first canvassed the evidence that was before them.

[6] The police produced Senior Constable Parkinson as a witness. He produced four exhibits: a log book; a certificate of accuracy for the car he was driving, the speedometer and odometer; a certificate of accuracy for the stalker unit; and a certificate of proficiency for him to operate the equipment. Senior Constable Parkinson also gave evidence to the effect that he saw the defendant coming around a corner as he travelled up Tar Barrel Hill and estimated his speed to be in excess of
110 km/hr so activated the radar and locked on a speed of 111 km/hr. The radar showed a steady speed with a steady tone which meant that there was no interference from another vehicle or object. There were no other vehicles in sight. The constable did a U-turn and stopped the defendant about two minutes later. The constable showed the defendant the locked on speed…

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 Warren v Police

Details

AGLC: Warren v Police [2014] NZHC 2258
Case: [2014] NZHC 2258
Decision Date: 17 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chris Murray Warren has appealed to the High Court against his conviction for driving a motorcycle at a speed exceeding 100 km/hr, a charge upheld by the Blenheim District Court. The central issues are whether there was a failure by the police to comply with disclosure obligations under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, and whether the Justices of the Peace erred in their assessment of the evidence presented. Mr Warren contends that non-disclosure by the police of certain manuals and notes prevented him from adequately challenging the credibility of the arresting officer, and that the Justices erred in their factual findings.

The High Court examined whether the non-disclosure of certain documents by the police led to a miscarriage of justice. Mr Warren argued that he was entitled to full disclosure of the radar operator's manual and other notes to challenge the accuracy of the radar reading. The police argued that they had disclosed all necessary information and that any further disclosure would not have assisted Mr Warren. The Court found that Mr Warren was entitled to the requested disclosure to properly challenge the arresting officer's credibility, and that the failure to disclose such material did indeed create a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected, constituting a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the District Court for rehearing with proper disclosure. This decision underscores the importance of full disclosure in criminal proceedings to ensure a fair trial.

Orders