JAMES HOLLIS V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CRI 2009-485-78 [2009] NZHC 968 (6 August 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
                                                                   CRI 2009-485-78



                                 JAMES HOLLIS
                                    Appellant



                              
           v



                        WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
                               Respondent



Hearing:       4 August
2009

Counsel:       Appellant In Person
               M Singleton for Respondent

Judgment:      6 August 2009


             
   ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J




Introduction


[1]    On Sunday, 14 December 2008, Mr Hollis drove into Wellington knowing
he
had to spend the whole the day there as an extra in a movie. He wanted a parking
area that allowed him to stay all day. He stopped
on parking meter 10 in Thorndon
Quay. He looked at the sign on the meter and it told him that on Sundays and public
holidays there
was no charge or a time limit for parking. At the end of the day he
returned to his car and had a parking ticket. The ticket was
for parking beyond the
maximum time allowed by notice on the meter.



JAMES HOLLIS V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL HC WN CRI 2009-485-78
6 August 2009

[2]    Mr Hollis immediately contacted the City Council telling them they were
wrong. By now he had some photographs
of the meter. The photographs illustrate
that the meter had three signs all of which were partly obscured. The dominant and
most
obvious sign had:


       a)      parking 8.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Monday to Thursday;


       b)      8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. Friday;


       c)      Saturday no charge;


       d)      Sunday and public holidays no charge or time .... The word beyond
        
      "time" had been obscured.


[3]    The second sign less obvious and more damaged began with the words
"Maximum parking allowed
90 minutes 8.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m." with the rest of the
sign obscured. But it is clear there were other, different, rules for different
days and
that that sign did allow some free time parking.


[4]    The third sign was simply another sticker on the side of the meter
which said
"90 minute maximum stay". Regretfully the information provided to the Wellington
City Council by Mr Hollis did not convince
them. It is obvious they did not take the
opportunity of looking at the parking meter. If they had it would have been obvious
to
them that Mr Hollis should not be prosecuted. A notice of hearing was issued.


[5]    Mr Hollis was charged that he allowed his
car to be parked on a metered
space in excess of the maximum time allowed "as indicated by notice on the meter
for a period of more
than two hours but not more than four hours". I note the charge
did not allege what was the maximum time allowed on the meter.


[6]    Mr Hollis appeared before two Justices of the Peace. The parking warden
who wrote the ticket appeared. Unsurprisingly the
warden could not remember the
particular details of the case but he had a note. His note told him the restriction on
the parking
meter, parking meter number 10, was 90 minutes. The parking meter
warden claimed that on the meter itself there was a "P90" and directly
under that the

word "7 days". He also said there were signs one metre to the left and twenty metres
to the right which told Mr
Hollis what the parking restriction was.         The signs
however made it clear that they related to parking areas where payment
at a machine
was required rather than payment by meter.


[7]    It is clear from Mr Hollis' photographs, which he showed the Court,
that
there was no sign which said "P90" directly under the word "7 days" contrary to the
evidence of the warden. Mr Hollis, as I
have said, showed the photographs to the
Court but the Justices for some reason found them unconvincing. It is difficult to
understand
why. They said the law was quite clear that Mr Hollis did have to pay
according to the sign on the parking meter. They said there
was a sign on the
parking meter that the maximum parking available was 90 minutes. It is difficult to
understand their observations given the photographs produced by Mr Hollis.


[8]
   Mr Hollis understandably appealed to this Court.         The Wellington City
Council now agree that the appeal should be dismissed.
I express my regret that they
did not apply the same attention to the case at the beginning that they have applied at
the end. If
they had done so Mr Hollis would have avoided a lot of time and
difficulty for him and his family, all of which were totally unnecessary.


[9]    The signage at best is hopelessly confusing and would make it impossible to
prosecute anybody who was parked at that meter
outside of any of the signs on the
meter. If there were to be prosecutions based on signage then one unambiguous sign
is required.
As I have said the prosecution could not possibly have established
beyond reasonable doubt there was any form of time limit on that
meter on a Sunday.


[10]   For the reasons given, therefore, the appeal should be allowed, the conviction
and fine quashed. As I
understand it, the City Council advise, through counsel
appearing today, that they have now removed the ambiguous signage and that
parking meters now have one unambiguous sign.


[11]   I have indicated to counsel that they should obviously give consideration
to
reimburse those they have unfairly prosecuted.

[12]    Mr Hollis seeks costs. I have pointed out to him the difficulties for
any form
of fee based payment of his costs given the costs in Criminal Cases Act. However,
he is entitled to out of pocket expenses.
He has not come today with any detail of
those expenses but he mentions the cost of paper and the cost of travel to and from
the
Courts. To try and finish the matter today, which is in everyone's interest, a
global figure is appropriate. I order costs in Mr
Hollis' favour in the sum of $75.00
which is a modest award to cover his out of pocket expenses.




                           
                            ____________________________
                                                                       Ronald
Young J

Solicitors:
J Hollis, 83 Kentwood Drive, Woodridge, Wellington, email: [e-mail]
M Singleton, Phillips Fox,
PO Box 2791, Wellington, email: [e-mail]