Wilson v The King - [2025] NZHC 1445

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2025-419-000012 [2025] NZHC 1445

BETWEENDIEAGO TAPARA ANARU ROPATA WILSON
Appellant

AND THE KING
Respondent

Hearing: 4 June 2025

Appearances: A Veatupu and S Hartstone for Appellant
L Glaser for Respondent

Judgment: 5 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Lang On 5 June 2025 at 10.00 am
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Hamilton Legal, Crown Solicitor at Hamilton Public Defence Service, Hamilton

WILSON v R [2025] NZHC 1445 [5 June 2025]

[1] Following a defended hearing in the District Court, Judge I D R Cameron found Mr Wilson guilty on a charge laid under s 36A(1)(c) of the Land Transport 1998 (the Act).1 This alleged that he had operated a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that caused sustained loss of traction.2 The Judge convicted and discharged Mr Wilson on that charge.

[2]Mr Wilson appeals against conviction.

The hearing in the District Court

[3] The only witness for the prosecution was Constable Barton. She said that at about 12.30 am on 4 November 2022, she and another officer in a patrol vehicle saw a motor vehicle doing what are known colloquially as “donuts” in an industrial area on the outskirts of Hamilton. She said the vehicle was driving around in a “figure 8” pattern on a grassed area and across a footpath. Constable Barton activated her vehicle’s flashing lights and approached the other vehicle. There was no dispute at trial that Mr Wilson was the driver of that vehicle.

[4] Constable Barton said that she had seen smoke coming from the vehicle’s tyres and that she could see grass and mud stuck to the vehicle’s wheels. She also said she saw skid marks on a nearby grassy area and on the footpath. However, she agreed in cross-examination that the photographs produced at the hearing only showed wheel marks on the grassed area.

[5] Mr Wilson gave evidence and said that he had been driving on the grassy area to test a new front axle he had installed on the vehicle earlier in the day. He denied that he had caused the vehicle to lose traction and said that any smoke must have come from the vehicle’s exhaust system rather than the tyres. He said there was no footpath in the vicinity of where he was driving.

1 New Zealand Police v Wilson [2024] NZDC 23779.
2 In contravention of s 36A(1)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998.

The Judge’s decision

[6] The Judge summarised the evidence for the prosecution and gave the reasons for his decision in the following paragraphs of his remarks:

[7] Turning to the prosecution evidence, Constable Barton was very clear that she had observed a loss of traction of the rear wheels of the vehicle from a distance of only some 15 metres away. Consistent with this was her evidence that grass was being thrown up and that smoke…

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 Wilson v The King

Details

AGLC: Wilson v The King [2025] NZHC 1445
Case: [2025] NZHC 1445
Decision Date: 5 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Wilson, appeals against his conviction in the District Court for operating a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that caused sustained loss of traction. The case before the High Court revolves around the interpretation of the term "road" as defined in the Land Transport Act 1998 and the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The appeal hinges on two primary grounds: whether the Judge erred in concluding that Mr Wilson drove over a footpath and caused his vehicle to lose traction while doing so, and whether the Judge erred in rejecting Mr Wilson's evidence that he was merely testing his vehicle.

The High Court, while acknowledging the District Court Judge’s role in assessing the credibility of witnesses, carefully reviewed the evidence and reasoning. It noted that the prosecution's evidence relied heavily on the testimony of Constable Barton, who claimed to have observed Mr Wilson's vehicle losing traction on a footpath. However, aerial photographs presented during the appeal showed that there was no footpath in the vicinity where the incident allegedly occurred. This undermined the reliability of Constable Barton’s evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that the Judge’s reasoning in rejecting Mr Wilson’s explanation for his actions contained errors, particularly regarding the timing and nature of the explanation provided to Constable Barton. The High Court concluded that these errors created a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the District Court’s findings.

Given these considerations, the High Court found that the Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was allowed, and the conviction was set aside. The Court did not deem it appropriate to remit the charge for rehearing, noting that the District Court Judge had not imposed any penalty on Mr Wilson, indicating a moderate assessment of the seriousness of the alleged offence.

Orders