KRPAN V LAND TRANSPORT NEW ZEALAND HC AK CRI-2008-404-279 [2009] NZHC 145 (17 February 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
AUCKLAND REGISTRY
                                                                   CRI-2008-404-279



                               TOMISLAV KRPAN
                                   Appellant



                               
         v



                       LAND TRANSPORT NEW ZEALAND
                                Respondent



Hearing:        17
February 2009

Appearances: Mr Krpan in person
             Ms C Paterson for Respondent

Judgment:       17 February 2009


   
                     (ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J
                     [on appeal against conviction and sentence]




Solicitors:
Crown
Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to:
Mr T Krpan, Mairangi Bay




KRPAN V LAND TRANSPORT NEW ZEALAND HC AK CRI-2008-404-279 17 February 2009

[1]    Mr Krpan was convicted on 5 August 2008 before the Justices of the Peace
on two charges laid under the Land Transport Act
1998.             The charges were as
follows:


       a)      Producing a logbook that omitted at least one, and not more than
five
               material particulars: s 79R(2)(c)(i) ("the logbook charge").


       b)      Failing to ensure that the name
of his approved taxi organisation was
               positioned on the inside of the vehicle: s 40 and r. 4 Offences &
         
     Penalties Regulations 1999 and 4.2(5) Land Transport Rules:
               Operator Licensing 2007 ("the ATO charge").


[2]
   The Justices fined Mr Krpan $150 on the logbook charge and $100 on the
ATO charge. He now appeals against conviction and sentence.


[3]    The facts upon which the informant relied at the hearing can be stated briefly.


Background


The logbook charge


[4]
   On 12 March 2008 a taxi inspector inspected a Mercedes Benz taxi operated
by Mr Krpan. He was operating the cab under the auspices
of an organisation called
President Limited Cabs.     The inspector asked Mr Krpan to produce his logbook.
When the inspector looked
at the logbook he found that it was full and did not
contain particulars from that day's driving.       At the very least, the logbook
should
have contained the date and the time at which Mr Krpan began driving on that day.
It would also have needed to record other
information in the event that Mr Krpan had
taken rest periods during the course of the day.


[5]    Mr Krpan defended that charge
on the basis that he had filled up the logbook
and had been searching on both the previous day and on 12 March 2008 for a new
book.
He said that he went to a service station near the airport that usually stocked
books but none were in stock. He also planned to
go to shops in the central city area
in an effort to find a new book.

[6]      As I explained to Mr Krpan during the hearing, it
is not sufficient to wait
until a logbook is full and then to endeavour to purchase a replacement. If a driver
does that then there
is a risk that he or she will not be able to purchase a new book
before the old book is full. Instead the driver must take appropriate
steps to ensure
that a new logbook is available as soon as the old one is full.


[7]      In those circumstances I am satisfied
that the Justices had no option but to
find the charge proved and the appeal against conviction on that charge cannot
succeed.


The ATO charge


[8]      So far as the other charge is concerned, r 4.2(5) of the relevant licensing rules
provides as follows:

         4.2(5) In addition to the requirements in 4.2(1), the name of the approved
                taxi organisation to which the
licence holder belongs and the unique
                fleet number assigned by the approved taxi organisation to the
           
    vehicle must be positioned on the inside on the rear left-hand
                passenger door, so that a passenger seated in
the rear of the vehicle
                can easily read it.

[9]      When the taxi inspector looked in the rear of Mr Krpan's vehicle
he saw that
Mr Krpan had a sticker with his unique fleet number displayed. The sticker did not,
however, contain the name of Mr Krpan's approved taxi organisation.


[10]     Counsel for the
respondent points out that the purpose of this requirement is
so that passengers can direct complaints or comments to the correct
taxi organisation
should the need arise.        If the name of the approved taxi organisation is not
displayed, the passenger will
not be able to contact the organisation in question.


[11]     Mr Krpan explains that the law changed approximately 18 months ago
to
require the name of the approved taxi organisation to be displayed as well as the
unique fleet number.       He said that he did
not know of the existence of the new
requirement.     He says that the Land Transport Safety Authority writes to his taxi
organisation
regularly in order to advise it of changes to licensing requirements and
rules.     He says that, if the Land Transport Safety Authority
did write to his

organisation on this occasion, then his organisation did not pass on the information
to its taxi drivers.   As
a result, he continued operating his taxi with a sticker that
complied with the old rules but not with the new. He has, however,
now rectified
the situation by replacing the old sticker with a sticker that also incorporates the
name of his approved taxi organisation.


[12]    As I advised Mr Krpan during the hearing, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Rule 4 makes it clear that the rules apply
to the holder of any passenger service
licence and to individual taxi drivers.       This means that the obligation is on
individual
drivers to ensure that their vehicles comply with the rules and regulations
at all times.


[13]    Having said that, I am satisfied
that Mr Krpan has genuinely endeavoured to
comply with his obligations as he believed them to be. There is also the fact that he
was probably entitled to rely, to some extent at least, upon his organisation bringing
relevant changes to the rules to his attention.
   In saying that I do not mean in any
way to derogate in any way from the responsibility of individual drivers to ensure
that they
keep themselves up to date with changes to the rules.      In addition, I am
satisfied that the problem has now been rectified. The
current prosecution has also
had, I am sure, the added benefit that Mr Krpan has communicated the new
requirements to many other
drivers in his company's fleet.


[14]    In those circumstances I am satisfied that it would be wrong to require Mr
Krpan to pay
any financial penalty. For that reason I propose to quash the fine that
the Justices imposed.      I am satisfied, however, that
the conviction itself should
remain in case any future infractions may occur.

Result


[15]      The appeal is allowed to the extent
that the fine on the ATO charge is
quashed. I decline to interfere with either conviction or with the fine on the logbook
charge.




Lang J