Yoganathan v Police - [2015] NZHC 2320

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-000200 [2015] NZHC 2320

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against conviction

BETWEEN

RAGULAN YOGANATHAN Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2015

Counsel:

A J Haskett for the Appellant
M K Regan for the Respondent

Judgment:

24 September 2015

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Edwards on 24 September 2015 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors: Legal Defence Service Ltd, Auckland
Kayes Fletcher Walker Ltd, Auckland

YOGANATHAN v POLICE [2015] NZHC 2320 [24 September 2015]

[1] Mr Yoganathan appeals his conviction1 for driving a motor vehicle on a road while under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a vehicle.2

[2] Counsel for Mr Yoganathan, Mr Haskett, submits that Judge Russell erred in his assessment of the evidence:

(a) by failing to give adequate weight to adverse credibility findings when weighing other aspects of the evidence necessary to establish the charge;

(b) that Mr Yoganathan was incapable of having “proper control” of the

vehicle; and

(c) that any excess alcohol level equates to an individual being incapable of having proper control.

[3] The respondent submits that there has been no miscarriage of justice. Judge Russell was well placed to evaluate the credibility of each witness, and he was entitled to reach the findings on the evidence that he did.

Background

[4] Mr Yoganathan’s conviction follows events on the evening of 25 July 2015. Mr Yoganathan was driving along Reagan Road in Manukau. Mr Prakash was in the passenger seat. There was a checkpoint on Reagan Road. Constable Morgan and another constable were parked in a patrol car on Albert Street, a side street off Reagan Road.

[5] Mr Yoganathan turned into Albert Street and parked on the side of the road.

Constable Morgan’s evidence was that he saw Mr Yoganathan drive into

1 NZ Police v Yoganathan [2015] NZDC 14062 (Decision).
2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 58.

Albert Street. Constable Morgan approached the car and asked Mr Yoganathan to undergo a passive breath screening test (the first test) which showed a failed reading. Constable Morgan then says he proceeded to administer the roadside evidential test with a Drager 9510 (the second test). That second test revealed a level of alcohol over 400 micrograms. Mr Yoganathan denies that the second test was administered. Constable Morgan says that he read Mr Yoganathan his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and asked him to accompany him back to the Manukau Police Station for further testing.

[6] Mr Yoganathan was not cooperative. He was forcibly removed from his car, handcuffed and taken by two police constables back to the patrol car. In the course of being moved from his car to the patrol car, Mr Yoganathan suffered a broken collarbone and three fractured ribs.

[7] At the Manukau Police Station, Mr Yoganathan…

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 Yoganathan v Police

Details

AGLC: Yoganathan v Police [2015] NZHC 2320
Case: [2015] NZHC 2320
Decision Date: 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the High Court of New Zealand is an appeal by Ragulan Yoganathan against his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol to the extent of being incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. Yoganathan argues that the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, particularly in relation to the credibility of Constable Morgan, the arresting officer, and in not considering whether his level of intoxication was sufficient to render him incapable of having proper control. The respondent, New Zealand Police, submits that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the Judge was entitled to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses and reach his findings based on the evidence presented.

The court considered whether the District Court Judge erred in his assessment of the evidence, focusing on the credibility of Constable Morgan and the weight given to other evidence supporting the charge. The High Court found that the Judge had adequately evaluated the credibility of the witnesses and had not erred in his findings. The court emphasised that while the Judge had the advantage of hearing the witnesses, the appellate court must still undertake a real review of the evidence. The court concluded that the Judge's findings were supported by the evidence, including the appellant's admissions, the results of the breath tests, and the observations of Dr Parbhu, who concluded that Yoganathan was under the influence of alcohol and incapable of controlling a motor vehicle.

The court also rejected the argument that any excess alcohol level is determinative of an individual's capability to have proper control. It found that the Judge had considered the totality of the evidence and did not rely solely on the breath test results. Finally, the court addressed the submissions regarding the burden of proof and the adequacy of reasons given by the Judge for his findings. It concluded that any differences in the expression of the burden of proof test did not amount to an error vitiating the decision, and that the reasons provided by the Judge were adequate to the occasion.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

Orders