Hall v Police [2014] NZHC 3132 (9 December 2014)

Last Updated: 18 December 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-485-86 [2014] NZHC 3132

SHANE HALL

v

_{NEW ZEALAND POLICE}

Hearing:	9 December 2014
Counsel:	S Hall in person W S Taffs for Respondent
Judgment:	9 December 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J}

[1] On 6 November 2014, the appellant was convicted of driving with excess breath alcohol for a third or subsequent time. He was fined $500 and disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for 12 months. He was further sentenced to nine months’ supervision and to attend any programme directed by Probation.

[2] The appellant appeals conviction but not sentence. The sentence is, he accepts, fair if he is guilty.

[3] The appellant does not deny that he was driving his car on the night along the Petone Esplanade. He was apparently swerving along the road and admitted, when pulled over, that he had been drinking. He does not deny that a breath screening test was applied, nor does he dispute the result of the evidential breath test at 615

_{micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The appellant’s case is a procedural one.}

HALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 3132 [9 December 2014]

[4] The essence of the appellant’s case is that he is dyslexic and suffers from limited literacy. He said he did not understand “a lot of the information they provided me” about his rights on arrest. He said he did not receive any information in respect of his right to require an evidential blood test. He was, he said, not advised of these things orally.

[5] The arresting constable gave evidence at trial that the appellant was verbally advised of his rights at the side of the road and that at each stage he was further advised verbally and in writing of his rights. The appellant said this was not true.

[6] In a carefully reasoned and succinct judgment, the learned District Court Judge preferred the evidence of the arresting constable to that of the appellant. The constable was sober. The appellant was not. He had been observed weaving across the road and had admitted drinking. The appellant admitted in evidence he had been provided a summary of his rights verbally at the side of the road. The Judge inferred from the fact that the appellant had signed the relevant form at each stage of the process that he had been given and read his rights. This is long-standing and standard procedure and the Judge had no reason to doubt that the procedure had been followed in the appellant’s case. Indeed the appellant admitted that when he had previously been arrested, he had in fact undertaken a blood test so was aware of this right.

[7] The learned Judge saw both witnesses and was able to undertake the necessary assessment. I am in no position to gainsay that assessment. I see no basis, on the record before me, to conclude that the Judge was wrong to prefer the constable’s evidence over that of the appellant.

_{[8] The appeal must be dismissed accordingly.}

Williams J