Smith v Police [2012] NZHC 725 (18 April 2012)

Last Updated: 28 April 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-463-000005 [2012] NZHC 725

BETWEEN CRAIG ANTHONY SMITH Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 April 2012

Appearances: Appellant in Person

S Simmers for Respondent

Judgment: 18 April 2012

_{JUDGMENT OF VENNING J}

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 April 2012 at 2.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High

Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date...............

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua [e-mail]

Copy to: C A Smith, Rotorua

SMITH V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2012-463-000005 [18 April 2012]

[1] Following a defended hearing before a Justice of the Peace the appellant was convicted of exceeding 80 kilometres an hour in a gazetted area. His car was captured on a speed camera travelling at 102 kilometres per hour.

[2] The appellant appeals on the basis that the operator of the speed camera, Ms Coulman did not comply with a relevant police information bulletin for the deployment of speed cameras in stationary vehicles. In particular, Mr Smith says Ms Coulman breached the following standards:

(1) speed camera vehicles are to be legally parked;

(2) speed camera vehicles must be deployed in a manner that is visible from the roadside and are prohibited from being deployed in hidden fashion;

...

(5) the use of private land for the parking of speed camera vehicles is permitted where the occupier of the land has clearly given permission for such use;

(6) the speed camera vehicle shall be parked on a straight section of road so that the operator has adequate reference points for aligning the camera and so that any vehicle, which is being measured/photographed, is travelling on a straight section of road at that time.

[3] In addition, during the course of the appeal hearing, Mr Smith suggested that the operator may also have been in breach of Standard 7 which provides:

(7) where speed cameras are deployed in an area where drivers are making the transition from a higher speed limit to a lower speed limit the speed camera vehicle shall not be positioned closer than 250 (two hundred and fifty) metres from the point where the speed limit reduces.

[4] In the District Court Ms Coulman gave evidence confirming that she had parked the Hyundai van containing the speed camera on a grass verge outside the Hamurana Play Centre. Mr Smith says he did not see the vehicle there. He is firmly of the view that if it was parked where Ms Coulman says it was parked he would have seen it and so it could not have been parked there. To support his argument Mr Smith produced a number of photographs to show that Ms Coulman’s estimate of the length of the grass verge of some 30 to 40 metres must have been incorrect. He also submitted that her measurement that the camera was located 3.3 metres from the white line marking the outside of the road lane was wrong. Mr Smith concluded that Ms Coulman’s vehicle must have been parked inside the play centre car park and hidden from view.

[5] There is a preliminary issue about the further evidence Mr Smith sought to adduce. Section 119 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 permits this Court on appeal to receive further evidence but only if:

that further evidence could not in the circumstances have reasonably been adduced at the [District Court] hearing.

[6] There is no real reason why the photographs and other evidence Mr Smith sought to produce to this Court could not have been produced to the District Court. However, Mr Simmers did not take particular objection to the photographs and I took them in and considered them.

[7] Despite Mr Smith’s further evidence and his submissions I am satisfied that the Justice of the Peace was correct to find the charge proved. The Justice of the Peace heard Ms Coulman and Mr Smith give evidence. The Justice of the Peace carefully questioned Mr Smith on the issue of where he said Ms Coulman was parked. He also recalled Ms Coulman and asked her further questions as to where her vehicle was sited. The Justice of the Peace then delivered a careful decision in which he considered the points made by Mr Smith but rejected them, preferring the evidence of Ms Coulman.

[8] There is nothing in the points that Mr Smith relies on to support the appeal. On the evidence given by Ms Coulman before the Justice of the Peace the speed

camera vehicle was legally parked. It would have been visible on the grass verge outside the Hamurana Road Play Centre. On Ms Coulman’s evidence, which the Justice of the Peace accepted as he was entitled to, there was no issue of the use of private land for parking of the speed camera vehicle. Next, the photographs produced by Mr Smith (and the other photographs before the District Court) confirm that the speed camera vehicle must have been parked on a straight section of road and that Mr Smith’s vehicle was itself travelling on a straight section of road at the time it was photographed.

[9] No issue arises about the proximity of the speed camera vehicle to the 100 kilometre an hour notice. Even if Ms Coulman was mistaken as to the length of the grass verge, as the Justice of the Peace correctly identified in his decision, at most Mr Smith’s vehicle would have been some 400 metres from the Hamurana Road intersection. On that basis there was at least a further 450 or 500 metres before the

100 kilometre an hour sign.

[10] Despite Mr Smith’s efforts to justify his challenge to the positioning of the speed camera his case essentially is that because he did not see it parked outside the play centre it could not have been there. Ms Coulman gave evidence on oath that that was the area where she was parked. The Justices of the Peace made a finding of credibility in accepting Ms Coulman’s evidence on that point.

[11] There is a further and perhaps more fundamental issue for Mr Smith. He accepts in any event that his car was travelling in excess of 80 kilometres an hour which, even on the photographs he produced, must have been at a point within the 80 kilometre an hour zone.

_{[12] The appeal is dismissed.}

Venning J