13 Oct 2023
Leave to appeal out of time is refused because the appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances or a real risk of miscarriage of justice; her claims are bald, unsupported by evidence, inconsistent with the record, and she has not waived privilege to adduce legal advice, therefore convictions entered after guilty pleas stand.
28 Feb 2023
The appeal was allowed because the trial judge's oral reasons showed he convicted by preferring the prosecution account over the defendant without demonstrating independent satisfaction that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt; that failure created a real risk the trial outcome was affected and the appropriate remedy was to remit the matter to the District Court for retrial under s233(3).
13 Dec 2022
The District Court Judge did not err: the offending was correctly assessed as low level, the consequences of conviction were of low seriousness and not shown to be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending, the proposed medical report was not fresh or material to change that assessment (though leave to file was granted), and the sentence of six months' mandatory disqualification and $1,000 reparation is not manifestly excessive; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
11 Feb 2022
Although the trial judge did not set out the statutory test verbatim, he applied the objective standard and, on the totality of the evidence (dash-cam footage, unobstructed visibility, complainant's high-visibility clothing, appellant's own admissions), was entitled to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant failed to look adequately or was travelling so as to prevent avoidance, thereby driving carelessly causing injury; the appeal is dismissed.
13 May 2021
Appeal against conviction dismissed: trial judge did not err in using the dash-cam footage (including visible speed/time overlay) to make factual findings and expert evidence was not required; appellate deference warranted on credibility and factual findings. Appeal against refusal to grant discharge dismissed: although there is a real and appreciable risk NZTA may refuse a P endorsement, it is not certain and the court must not usurp NZTA's statutory decision-making on licensing related to transport safety; therefore a discharge without conviction was inappropriate.
12 May 2021
Appeal allowed and conviction set aside because it was reasonably possible the appellant did not recognise subjective sleepiness due to undiagnosed severe OSA and the expert evidence did not prove that a reasonable person in his position would have recognised the risk of falling asleep; conviction therefore unsafe.
14 Dec 2020
On the judge's factual findings the collision could have been caused by the cyclist unlawfully overtaking on the left at speed and the Crown did not exclude the reasonable possibility the appellant drove reasonably; therefore the conviction could not be sustained beyond reasonable doubt and was quashed with an acquittal.
7 Aug 2020
Leave for a second appeal was declined because the applicant's complaints are fact‑specific matters already considered and rejected by the District Court and the High Court, they do not raise matters of general or public importance, and they do not demonstrate a risk of miscarriage of justice such that the statutory threshold for leave is met.
9 Mar 2020
The High Court held the 16-month sentence was not manifestly excessive; the District Court's high starting point was within an available range given the grave, long-term injuries, the appellant's decision to drive after drinking late at night and his failure to make enquiries or report the injured victim, and the Judge validly exercised discretion to refuse home detention on grounds of deterrence, denunciation and the appellant's apparent lack of full appreciation of seriousness.
10 Sept 2019
Leave to bring a second appeal against conviction was granted because the Court was satisfied the s 237(2) criteria were met: the proposed expert evidence was fresh, credible and capable of negating the factual basis for culpability such that the conviction may be unsafe. Leave to appeal the sentence was declined because no grounds justified a second appeal against sentence.