T v Police HC Rotorua CRI 2009-463-71 [2009] NZHC 2231 (10 December 2009)

Last Updated: 12 February 2016

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

_{CRI 2009-463-71}

BETWEEN T

Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 10 December 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

Sarah-Louise Wootton for Respondent

Judgment: 10 December 2009

_{JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J}

SOLICITORS

Gordon Pilditch (Rotorua) for Respondent

_{(copy to Appellant in person)}

T V POLICE HC ROT CRI 2009-463-71 10 December 2009

[1] Mr T appeals against a decision of Justices of the Peace sitting in the District Court at Tokoroa on 21 May 2009 finding proved a charge that he drove a motorcycle in excess of 100 kilometres per hour.

[2] The notice of hearing alleged that Mr T committed the offence at or near Tokoroa on 28 December 2008. The notice nominated a registration number for the motorcycle of 44ZZY. In fact the evidence led by Mr T at the hearing in the District Court was that the registration number for his motorcycle was 44ZCY; in other words, there was a difference in one of the letters.

[3] The Justices accepted that evidence. However, they were satisfied that the variation between the information sheet and Mr T 's evidence was not a basis for dismissing the charge. They were correct. An error in the information sheet is not material. Proof of the correct registration number of the motorcycle is not an element of the charge of driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding 100 kilometres per hour. There is no dispute that a police officer detected a motorcycle being driven above that speed. The only question is whether it was Mr T who was driving.

[4] Constable Bruce Morrissey was the one witness for the prosecution. He was stationed at Tokoroa and a member of the Road Policing Group. He clocked or tracked a motorcycle on a Stalker DSR radar being driven at a speed of

130 kilometres per hour. He stopped the rider of the motorcycle. He sought details. The licence produced, with an appropriate photographic identification, was Mr T 's.

[5] Mr T represented himself at the defended hearing. He challenged the police officer's identification of him. He relied on the officer's uncertainty whether, when he spoke to the rider, the latter was wearing a helmet. That fact is irrelevant. Whatever is the case, the officer said that his standard practice was to check the details on the licence, look at the rider and confirm that the two matched.

[6] In my judgment the Justices had a sufficient evidential foundation for concluding that Mr T was the rider of the motorcycle at the relevant time. Indeed this finding was irresistible given Mr T 's admission in cross-

examination that he maintained his licence with him at all times, especially when he was driving or riding. He did not suggest that somebody else had used his licence on

28 December 2008 or that it had been removed from his possession without his authority. The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. The only inference available was that the nominated licence holder, Mr T , was the man who produced the licence after being stopped on his motorcycle by the police officer immediately after he was detected speeding.

[7] Accordingly Mr T 's appeal is dismissed. He does not appeal against his sentence.

Rhys Harrison J