Hibbs v Police [2013] NZHC 1462 (18 June 2013)

Last Updated: 9 July 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-409-00005 [2013] NZHC 1462

ARTHUR WALLACE HIBBS Appellant

v

POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 18 June 2013

Appearances: Appellant in Person with McKenzie Friend, Mr D McLaughlin

D J Orchard for Respondent

Judgment: 18 June 2013

_{JUDGMENT OF WHATA J}

[1] In my judgment dated 22 May 2013[1] I declined Mr Hibbs’ appeal against a conviction and fine for failing to give way at an intersection with a stop sign. I resolved to adopt the approach taken by this Court in Larason v Police[2] to the effect that when Mr Hibbs crossed the stop lines at the intersection of Main South Road and Kirk Road, while there was traffic on Main South Road, he breached various traffic rules, including r 4.1(1)(b).

[2] Mr Hibbs now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the only similarity between Larason and the present case was that it involved the same intersection. Mr Hibbs, through his friend, Mr McLaughlin, emphasises to me that I have missed various points relating to the physical layout of the intersection

_{and that Constable Dene James Miller made a number of false statements.}

HIBBS v POLICE [2013] NZHC 1462 [18 June 2013]

[3] I do not propose to burden this judgment with a full recitation of the alleged errors. In essence, the alleged errors are ones of fact and not law, and Mr Hibbs is seeking to relitigate his essential point made to the Justices of the Peace and then to me, that he used a merging lane to join the traffic on Main South Road. He does not dispute the fact that he crossed the double yellow lines where he was required to stop and he does not dispute that there was traffic on Main South Road immediately adjacent to the intersection when he did so. In those circumstances, he breached the road code and the fine was appropriate.

[4] As I indicated in my judgment, it would be helpful if the police liaised with the Land Transport Agency to get their view of the lane that Mr Hibbs describes as a merging lane. Be that as it may, I was not satisfied on the evidence before me that I could in effect depart from the reasoning in Larason.

[5] Accordingly, I do not consider that this matter gives rise to an appeal on a point of law of general public importance or at all and therefore there is no jurisdiction upon which to grant leave. The essential issues are one of fact and are in effect peculiar to the issues raised by the appellant.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

---

[1] _{Hibbs v Police [2013] NZHC 1279.}
[2] _{Larason v Police HC Christchurch CRI 2010-409-000244, 21 October 2011.}