YOGANATHAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZCA 169
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there is an arguable issue that the District Court's reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test may have caused a miscarriage of justice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZCA 169
- Parties
- Applicant: Ragulan Yoganathan; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 4 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal (second Appeal) / Leave Granted
- Outcome
- Application for leave to bring a second appeal granted.
- Legal Topics
- Driving Under the Influence, Evidential Breath Test, Expert Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ragulan Yoganathan
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (second Appeal) / Leave Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test resulted in a miscarriage of justice
- 2 Whether leave to bring a second appeal should be granted
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to bring a second appeal was granted because there is an arguable issue that the District Court's reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test may have caused a miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to bring a second appeal granted.
Orders
- Leave to bring a second appeal granted; the issue on second appeal to be whether reliance on Dr Parbhu and the evidential breath test resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
YOGANATHAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZCA 169 [4 May 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA614/2015[2016] NZCA 169BETWEEN RAGULAN YOGANATHANApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 5 April 2016Court: Wild, Clifford and Brewer JJCounsel: A J Haskett for ApplicantK S Grau for RespondentJudgment: 4 May 2016 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is granted.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Brewer J)[1] Mr Yoganathan's application for leave to appeal to this Court is granted. Thatwill be a second appeal against his conviction for driving under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.1 That charge was found proved by Judge R J Russell following a trial in the Manukau District Court on 7 July 2015.2 In terms of s 340(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, we do not need to give reasons. Nor does s 237(2)(b) of the1 An offence under s 58(1)(a) of the Land Transport Act 1998.2 Police v Yoganathan [2015] NZDC 14062; Mr Yoganathan unsuccessfully appealed this decision in Yoganathan v Police [2015] NZHC 2320.Criminal Procedure Act contemplate this judgment stating the question or questions on which leave is granted. However, we indicate that the issue on the second appealwill be whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the District Court'sreliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent