Stodart v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 729 (8 April 2014)

Last Updated: 16 April 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-348 [2014] NZHC 729

BETWEEN	PETER STODART Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	8 April 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in person H Musgrave for Respondent
Judgment:	8 April 2014

_{ORAL JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J}

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

STODART v POLICE [2014] NZHC 729 [8 April 2014]

[1] This is an appeal by Mr Stodart against part of the sentencing of Judge Harvey in the District Court on 29 October. Following a defended hearing, Mr Stodart was found guilty of carelessly driving his motor vehicle, thereby causing an injury to Joanne Ivor Woodward.

[2] This was an accident that occurred on Waiheke. Mr Stodart was the driver of a motor vehicle towing a trailer which collided with the rear of a Volkswagon motor vehicle being driven by Ms Woodward. The accident occurred because both Ms Woodward and Mr Stodart were surprised by the unexpected presence of workmen sheltered behind a truck which was parked on the side of Onetangi Road in the very spot where Ms Woodward was intending to turn off Onetangi Road, onto the driveway of Stony Ridge Vineyard where she worked. It is not necessary to get into the details of the finding of carelessness.

[3] The Judge, in his notes of evidence, found that the presence of the large truck had obstructed both Ms Woodward’s vision and his and that truck had the effect of contributing to the set of circumstances Mr Stodart found himself in. However, he was found liable and convicted. The Judge said:

[4] So I am going to find those are special circumstances. No disqualification, s 81 you will be convicted fined $300. Court costs $139.89,

$6,500 reparation as per the schedule that I have from the police payable at

$25 a week. First payment 8 November that has got to be paid to the Court and it will then be paid to the victim. ...

[4] It is not clear from the District Court file whether or not Mr Stodart was sent the reparation schedule prepared by the New Zealand Police. That shows on the front page a reparation total of $6,500. $6,500 also appears on page 3 against the title “further costs required to be made good”. That sum also appears under the

_heading:

_{Current Situation}

_{Undriveable over 50k/hr due to severe shake ??$unknown $500??}

Needs rust cut out of doner parts and full repaint $4,000.00

New value if above work carried out $9,000? = loss of $1,000.00

$6,500.00

$4,000 + $1,000 = $5,500 and it appears to have been rounded up because of the unknowables to $6,500. However, all is in doubt because Ms Woodward has also claimed medical expenses totalling $395, travel costs totalling $267 and lost earnings being the difference between the ACC payments and the income that she would have otherwise earned of $1,516.69.

[6] At the time Mr Stodart was in receipt of a letter from the AMP of 9 May which contained the breakdown of the insurance company reimbursement, which appears on page 3 of the police reparation schedule under the heading “my insurance company reimbursed me for costs of basic repairs $2,131.80”. It is not immediately obvious but it would appear that Ms Woodward is distinguishing between basic repairs and other repairs, but I am not at all sure that was a distinction drawn by the insurance company. Attached to the letter from the insurance company of 9 May are two statements – one from a Mr Mangino for supply and fitting to the vehicle ten parts, together with a labour cost and GST, totalling $1,150 and an invoice from Waiheke Panelbeaters to Mr Mangino for panelbeating totalling (with GST) $897 and two minor accounts of $15.20 and $69.60. AMP are now seeking that payment from Mr Stodart.

[7] It appears to me, on the face of these documents, that there is room for argument that Ms Woodward may have difficulty claiming more for the repairs of the car than the sum incurred by AMP of $2,131.80, particularly if it was AMP’s responsibility to recover the repairs. It would appear that she had third party cover at least.

[8] I have looked at the transcript of the proceedings. Ms Woodward did discuss the cost of repair from the notes of evidence (page 15 on) and the Judge asked questions. It appears that there was some difference of opinion between Ms Woodward and the insurance company who originally wanted to write it off. Then there was some discussion between the Judge and Ms Woodward but mainly about the accident. Mr Stodart gave evidence. He was led by the Judge in evidence in chief and cross-examined by the police officer but there was no discussion with

reparation schedule was sent to him.

[9] His appeal today is limited to the reparation order. Because these proceedings were commenced before 1 July, the Summary Proceeding Act applies. By s 121 of that Act, I have the power to remit any matter back to the District Court for consideration. This Court has considerable concerns as to the justice of the order for reparation of $6,500 for the matters of fact and history of the litigation I have just summarised. So much so that I regard the figure of $6,500 as reparation to be unsustainable in the absence of further scrutiny by way of a fair process, giving notice to both Mr Stodart and to Ms Woodward.

[10] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on these terms: (a) The reparation order is set aside.

(b) The matter is remitted back to the District Court for the reparation order to be reconsidered by the Court, preferably by Judge Harvey, no earlier than two months from the date of this judgment. In the meantime, Ms Woodward is to be sent by the Registry a copy of this judgment and a copy of the AMP letter of 9 May and enclosures received by Mr Stodart.

(Mr Registrar, would you obtain at the conclusion of this judgment, make a photocopy of these materials which will be put on the file and a copy sent to Ms Woodward and the original given back to Mr Stodart.)

[11] Ms Woodward and Mr Stodart are invited to use the next two months to see if they can reach an agreement on a reparation order to submit to the District Court or, if they want to take the matter away from the District Court (for example, to agree to remit the matter to the Disputes Tribunal). But failing them reaching any agreement, either one of them can apply to the District Court to have the case set down for hearing after two calendar months or the Registrar of the District Court can set it

writing, signed by both Ms Woodward and Mr Stodart, saying the matter has settled.