Williamson v Police - [2016] NZHC 2291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2016-409-60 [2016] NZHC 2291

BETWEEN
DOUGLAS WILLIAMSON

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 27 September 2016

Counsel:

D Williamson, in person, Appellant
N A Pointer for Respondent

Judgment:

27 September 2016

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Christchurch
Copy to:
D Williamson, Appellant

WILLIAMSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 2291 [27 September 2016]

[1] Mr Williamson appeals against a fine that was imposed by Judge Gilbert in the District Court at Christchurch on 19 May 2016.1 The fine was imposed following a charge involving an infringement notice. It was brought under s 10(2) of the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the Road User Charges (Infringement Offences) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations).

[2] Mr Williamson was alleged to have operated a heavy road user charges vehicle on a road where the reading of the distance recorder fitted to the vehicle exceeded the maximum reading specified in the distance licence by more than 500 kilometres. The amount by which the distance licence was exceeded was 1057
kilometres.2

[3] Schedule 2 to the Regulations provides a table of infringement fees that are applied depending upon how far over the 500 kilometre threshold the reading is. There are a number of bands. Where the reading is between 500 kilometres to 1000 kilometres over the limit, the specified fee infringement fee is $300. Where the reading is 1000 kilometres to 2500 kilometres over the licence, the infringement fee is $600. The scale escalates so that the maximum theoretical fine is one of $3,000 for an individual or $15,000 for a company.

[4] Mr Williamson made submissions to Judge Gilbert on the circumstances surrounding the infringement. It is clear from discussions that occurred before the penalty was imposed, that there was some issue over a letter that Mr Williamson had written to the Court asking for a District Court Judge who had been involved in sentencing him and his brother on another matter not to sit.

[5] That issue was irrelevant to the assessment of penalty in relation to Mr Williamson’s situation. I put it to one side and do not embark on an inquiry into whether what was said was appropriate or not.

[6] One piece of information that is before me, but was not before Judge Gilbert relates to the reason why the infringement occurred. Mr Williamson is dyslexic. He

1 New Zealand Police v Williamson [2016] NZDC 8853.
2 Road User Charges Act 2012, s 10(2); see also Road User Charges (Infringement Offences) Regulations 2012, reg 4(2)(b).

has processes in place to deal with most issues that arise in the course of his business to ensure he does not infringe requirements. However, in this particular case he failed to notice that the limits had been exceeded in the way they had. That, I am satisfied, gave rise to an innocent breach rather than one which was intentional. The breach should be treated on that basis.

[7] The…

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 Williamson v Police

Details

AGLC: Williamson v Police [2016] NZHC 2291
Case: [2016] NZHC 2291
Decision Date: 27 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, Douglas Williamson appealed against a fine imposed by Judge Gilbert in the District Court at Christchurch on 19 May 2016. The fine was imposed following a charge under the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the Road User Charges (Infringement Offences) Regulations 2012, arising from an infringement notice. The charge related to Mr Williamson's operation of a heavy road user charges vehicle on a road where the distance recorder reading exceeded the maximum reading specified in the distance licence by more than 500 kilometres, specifically 1057 kilometres. The legal issue before the court was whether the fine of $600 was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including Mr Williamson's dyslexic condition and the relatively small excess over the limit.

The court considered whether the fine imposed was excessive, particularly given the personal mitigating factor of dyslexia and the relatively minor breach. Heath J noted that the infringement fee of $600 seemed excessive as the excess was only 57 kilometres into the second band, which dealt with readings between 1000 kilometres and 2500 kilometres over the limit. Heath J also highlighted that once the question of infringement was before the Court, the approach to imposition of penalty should proceed on ordinary principles of sentencing, allowing for the consideration of personal mitigating factors. Furthermore, Heath J observed that Judge Gilbert had purported to enter a conviction, which is not permissible under section 375(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 when dealing with an infringement offence.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the $600 fine, substituting it with a fine of $300. The order for payment of court costs was also quashed. Heath J indicated to Mr Williamson that he could make arrangements with the Registrar to pay the fine over time, if necessary.

Orders