Dawson v R [2011] NZCA 11 (15 February 2011)

Last Updated: 23 February 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA412/2010 [2011] NZCA 11

BETWEEN NIGEL PAUL DAWSON Applicant

AND THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 7 February 2011

Court: Ellen France, Potter and Miller JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person K Laurenson for Respondent

Judgment: 15 February 2011 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

Introduction

[1] Mr Dawson seeks special leave to appeal a finding that he committed the offence of failing to produce his driver’s licence when required to do so, contrary to s 31 of the Land Transport Act 1998.
[2] He was stopped by a police officer at Upper Hutt on 16 May 2007. His vehicle, which the officer described in the resulting infringement notice as a white Subaru, had an expired warrant of fitness and was unregistered. The officer asked him to produce his driver’s licence, but Mr Dawson did not have it on him. He explained to the officer that it was in another vehicle, but there was no evidence that he sought an opportunity to produce it. Mr Dawson later told the Court that it was in the glove box of another car which he normally drives and that car was locked up overnight in a workshop because it was getting a warrant of fitness. He was stopped at about 8.15am, so it had not been possible for him to retrieve the licence. His defence, in other words, was that the licence had been locked up out of his control.
[3] The Justices of the Peace found the infringement proved and imposed a fine of $50. They also found that he had used an unlicensed motor vehicle and operated it without current evidence of a vehicle inspection.
[4] A judicial decision having been issued, Mr Dawson had the right of appeal to the High Court and a further appeal, with leave, to this Court.[1] In the High Court, Clifford J found that the vehicle licensing and inspection charges were not made out.[2] The Justices had failed to address the defence that a person may operate a vehicle after the expiry of a warrant of fitness if it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and is safe to be operated for that purpose. However, Clifford J was satisfied that Mr Dawson was asked by the Constable to produce his licence and he failed to do so. His justification, that his current licence was unavailable, was no defence.
[5] On further appeal, Mr Dawson must point to a question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Clifford J refused leave, noting that the only justification advanced by Mr Dawson was that the Subaru was not white but rather grey.[3] The colour of the car was not an element of the infringement. Mr Dawson had accepted that he was the driver of the vehicle and did not have his licence with him.
[6] Mr Dawson now seeks leave of this Court under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. He says there was procedural error, in that the infringement notice mis-stated the colour of the car. He also complains that he has a conviction on his record. (He is mistaken; the offence was handled as an infringement.)
[7] We are satisfied that no question of law arises, still less one of general or public importance. The colour of the car is not an element of the offence, which is committed when a person “fails to produce his or her driver’s licence for inspection without delay after being required to do so by an enforcement officer”.
[8] The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

---

[1] Davies v Ministry of Transport [1989] 3 NZLR 300 (CA).

[2] Dawson v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI 2008-485-151, 27 April 2009.

[3] Dawson v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI 2008-485-151, 9 June 2010 at [11].