Youth Court Decisions How to Use Full list of key titles CYPFA section Date

Police v Pedley [2002] DCR 629

Case summary provided by LEXISNEXIS NZ

Name: Police v Pedley
Reported: [2002] DCR 629
File number: CRN 1054013962-3; CRN 1054007381-2
Date: 19 April 2002
Court: District Court
Location: Palmerston North
Judge: Lovegrove DCJ
Charge: Dangerous Driving; Failing to Stop
CYPFA:
Key Title: Delay

LEXISNEXIS Summary:

Transport - Dangerous driving - Application by defendant to dismiss four charges on grounds of undue delay and/or abuse of process - Failing to stop for flashing lights/siren - Failing to stop at request/signal of officer - Fixture vacated due to unavailability of police witness - Defence counsel unavailable for re-allocated fixture - Next re-allocated fixture a "back-up" fixture to other case - Insufficient time to hear defendant’s case - New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25(b).

The defendant was charged with failing to stop for red/blue flashing lights/siren and dangerous driving on 10 November 2000. The charges were laid on 14 November 2000, and not guilty pleas were entered on 28 November 2000. At a status hearing on 2 February 2001 the not guilty pleas were confirmed with identity the only matter in issue. Matters were put off for a fixture on 23 April 2001. Before that date, the defendant made a formal complaint against the police alleging he had sustained injury as a result of an unlawful assault on him by an officer during the events of 10 November 2000. On 12 April 2001 the Registrar notified counsel for the defendant that the 23 April fixture had been vacated due to "police witness unavailable". On 23 April the police laid further charges against the defendant of careless use and failing to stop at the request/signal of an enforcement officer also arising from the events of 10 November. These charges were consolidated with the earlier ones on the same defended basis. A fixture was allocated for 6 July 2001 despite the registry being aware that counsel for the defendant had jury trial commitments on that date, which was confirmed in a letter from counsel to the Registrar dated 22 May 2001. A further letter dated 23 May advised that he had jury trial commitments between 21 June and 24 August and nine summary fixtures allocated to him over that time requiring re-allocation. On 8 May 2001 the police acknowledged that an officer had struck the defendant on the head with a torch and that on the balance of probabilities this was not accidental. After leaving a voice-mail message for the Registrar about arranging a meeting to discuss re-allocation of his summary fixtures, on 15 October 2001 counsel for the defendant wrote to the Registrar to express concern about the delay in light of an indication that no fixture date would be available before December 2001. He also referred to the arranging of a meeting in the letter. On 20 December 2001 the defendant was allocated a fixture for 25 February 2002, being a "back-up" fixture to another case. That case was resolved on 22 February. However, on 25 February 2002 five other cases and five arrests also had to be dealt with. A youth matter took priority in the afternoon and there was insufficient time to hear the defendant’s case in the morning with other cases taking priority.

On 28 February 2002 the defendant applied for the dismissal of four charges on the grounds of undue delay and/or abuse of process in terms of s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Held (charges dismissed)

(1) The Court regarded the delay of 17 months that had occurred as attributable to avoidable and unreasonable deficiency of process and, on that account, in terms of Martin v District Court at Tauranga (1995) 12 CRNZ 509, as undue.

A process that allows for the increasingly routine scheduling of priority fixtures to days when their combined length will exceed available sitting time and that then relegates the casualties of that process to some distant further date - seven months in the defendant’s case - is doomed to be condemned and virtually sits up and begs for s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to be invoked.

Cases referred to in judgment

Dreliozis v R (1994) 12 CRNZ 548
Martin v District Court at Tauranga (1995) 12 CRNZ 509
Moevao v Department of Labour [1980] 1 NZLR 464 (CA)
Police v Act (1991) 8 CRNZ 304
R v B; R v Parkes (1995) 13 CRNZ 377

Application

This was an application to dismiss four charges on the ground of undue delay and/or abuse of process under s 25(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.