Yoganathan v The Queen - [2017] NZCA 225

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA614/2015
[2017] NZCA 225

BETWEEN	RAGULAN YOGANATHAN Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	9 May 2017
Court:	Harrison, Gilbert and Katz JJ
Counsel:	A J Haskett for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	31 May 2017 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
__________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

The appellant, Ragulan Yoganathan, was found guilty following a defended hearing in the Manukau District Court on one charge of driving under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle (otherwise known as “driving under the influence of alcohol”) under s 58(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998.[1] Judge Russell declined Mr Yoganathan’s application for discharge without conviction and imposed a sentence of six months’ disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.[2] Edwards J dismissed his appeal to the High Court.[3] This Court has granted him leave to bring a second appeal.[4]
[1]Police v Yoganathan [2015] NZDC 14062 [Oral judgment].
[2]Police v Yoganathan [2015] NZDC 14056 [Sentencing notes].
[3]Yoganathan v Police [2015] NZHC 2320 [First appeal].
[4]Yoganathan v Police [2016] NZCA 169 [Leave judgment].
While identification of a question of law is not a prerequisite to obtaining leave,[5] this Court’s leave judgment indicated that the issue would be whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the District Court’s reliance on the evidence of a medical practitioner, Dr Umesh Parbhu, or the evidence of breath alcohol obtained by way of a roadside screening test.[6]

District Court

[5]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237 and 340(3)(a).

[6]Leave judgment, above n 4, at [1]. It is common ground that the Court’s reference to an “evidential breath test” is in error. No evidential breath test was administered. It is therefore assumed that the Court intended to refer to a roadside screening test.

The police originally charged Mr Yoganathan both with driving under the influence of alcohol and refusing to supply a breath or blood specimen. The latter charge was withdrawn during the defended hearing.
Certain facts are not now or cannot be in material dispute. During the evening on 25 July 2015 Mr Yoganathan was driving his motor vehicle in Manukau. His passenger was Amit Prakash. Constable Jermaine Morgan and another constable were parked in a patrol car on Albert Road, a cul-de-sac adjacent to Reagan Road. The police were operating a breath alcohol checkpoint on Reagan Road. Constable Morgan was a prosecution witness at the defended hearing but the other officer did not give evidence.
Mr Yoganathan drove his vehicle off Reagan Road and into Albert Road. Constable Morgan inferred that Mr Yoganathan was attempting to avoid the police checkpoint. He parked near the police vehicle. Constable Morgan asked him to undergo a passive breath test by speaking into a handheld device which shows whether a person…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Yoganathan v The Queen [2017] NZCA 225
Case: [2017] NZCA 225
Decision Date: 31 May 2017 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Yoganathan v The Queen, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand was called upon to review the conviction of Ragulan Yoganathan on a charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. The appellant was found guilty in the Manukau District Court and subsequently appealed to the High Court, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeal granted leave for a second appeal. The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the District Court's reliance on the evidence of a medical practitioner and the results of a roadside screening test. The Court found that the detention of the appellant was unlawful, as the police officer did not adequately inform the appellant of the requirement to accompany him without delay. Consequently, all evidence obtained after the unlawful detention, including the medical practitioner's observations, was deemed inadmissible. The Court concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the charge of driving under the influence of alcohol beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.

Orders