OSTEN V NEW ZEALAND POLICE COA CA571/2012

OSTEN V NEW ZEALAND POLICE COA CA571/2012 [18 March 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA571/2012[2013] NZCA 66BETWEEN BOHDAN ANDREW OSTENApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Harrison, Wild and White JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonS B Edwards for the RespondentJudgment: 18 March 2013 at 10.15 amOn the papersJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Harrison J)[1] The applicant, Bohdan Andrew Osten, applies to this Court for special leave1to appeal against a judgment of MacKenzie J,2 dismissing his appeal against a conviction in the District Court on a charge of changing lanes before ascertaining that the manoeuvre could be made safely.3 In a later judgment4 MacKenzie J dismissed Mr Osten's application for leave to appeal.1 Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144.2 Osten v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 1602.3 Land Transport Act 1998, s 40; Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999,reg 4; and Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 2.3(2)(b).4 Osten v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI-2012-485-46, 17 August 2012.[2] Mr Osten had defended the charge which was heard before two Justices of the Peace. They found that in December 2011 Mr Osten was driving a vehicle in the feeder lane on State Highway 2 near Petone when without indication he moved his vehicle into the pathway of a truck driving in the same direction in the middle lane. The truck driver, who was the complainant, was forced to brake heavily, causing the rear wheels to lock and the truck to slide. Both the complainant and Mr Osten gave evidence. Determination of the charge came down to a credibility contest betweenthe two conflicting accounts. The Justices accepted the complainant's evidence. Indismissing Mr Osten's appeal, MacKenzie J held that Mr Osten had failed to show any error by the Justices or any reason for challenging their credibility assessment.[3] In support of his application to this Court Mr Osten alleges that special leave should be granted on the grounds that, first, there was no evidence to support the conviction and second, the police prosecuted him out of malice and the desire to collect revenue. Neither ground establishes a question of law, let alone one that ought to be submitted to this Court by reason of its general or public importance.[4] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent