Rangitaawa v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2012-488-94 [2013] NZHC 147

BETWEEN GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 February 2013

Appearances: Appellant in person
C A Anderson for Respondent

Judgment: 8 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 8 February 2013 at 4.40 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip & Smith, Crown Solicitor, Whangarei: catherinea@mwis.co.nz

Copy to:
Mr G C Rangitaawa, c/- The Manager, Northland Regional Corrections Facility, P O Box 727, Kaikohe

RANGITAAWA V POLICE HC WHA CRI-2012-488-94 [8 February 2013]

Introduction

[1] On 12 December 2012 the Appellant was convicted of failing to stop when followed by a motor vehicle displaying flashing red and blue lights or sounding a siren, and of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken, being offences pursuant to ss 52(1)(c) and s 60(1)(a) Land Transport Act 1998 (“Act”) respectively.

[2] Judge de Ridder sentenced the Appellant in December 2012. On the refusal to permit charge the Judge sentenced the Appellant to nine months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for one year and one day.[1] The Judge convicted and discharged the Appellant on the failing to stop charge.

[1] Police v Rangitaawa DC Dargaville CRI-2012-011-280, 12 December 2012.

[3] By notice of appeal dated 13 December 2012 the Appellant appealed conviction and sentence. The Appellant’s grounds of appeal are unclear and he did not comply with the requirement of High Court Practice Note 11 namely that he file and serve points on appeal not less than five working days before the hearing.

[4] The appeals against conviction can be dealt with easily. The Appellant pleaded guilty to the charges. Given that no appeal can be brought. There has been no application to vacate the guilty pleas.

[5] As for sentence, given that the Judge discharged the Appellant on the failure to stop charge, I do not propose to address that matter any further.

[6] On the face of it the sentence imposed on the charge of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken is unremarkable.

[7] Before me the Appellant made two principal submissions.

[8] The first was that, at the moment at least, the Appellant’s name is not Graham Colin Rangitawaa but Rangitira Colin Rangitawaa. However, in the course of the hearing, the Appellant acknowledged that previously he has been known as

Graham Colin Rangitawaa and he did refuse to supply a blood specimen when asked to do so on 13 June 2012. Accordingly, I do not propose to take that submission any further.

[9] The Appellant’s second submission was to the effect that he is not subject to

the provisions of the Act nor to the jurisdiction of the District Court.

[10] As Crown counsel submitted, the Court of Appeal has addressed and dismissed similar submissions on many occasions. Phillips v R and R v Toia[2] are two such decisions. I reject this second submission accordingly.

Result

[2] Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225; and R v Toia [2007] NZCA 331.

[11] For the reasons given I dismiss this appeal.

..................................................................

M Peters J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rangitaawa v Police involves the Appellant, Graham Colin Rangitaawa, who was convicted and sentenced by Judge de Ridder on two charges under the Land Transport Act 1998. The Appellant was found guilty of failing to stop when followed by a police vehicle displaying flashing red and blue lights or sounding a siren, and of refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken. The Judge sentenced the Appellant to nine months' imprisonment for the refusal to permit charge and disqualified him from driving for one year and one day. The Appellant was discharged for the failing to stop charge. The Appellant subsequently appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the Appellant could appeal his conviction, given that he had pleaded guilty, and whether the sentence imposed for the refusal to permit charge was appropriate. The Appellant also argued that his name was not Graham Colin Rangitawaa but Rangitira Colin Rangitawaa, and that he was not subject to the provisions of the Land Transport Act nor to the jurisdiction of the District Court. The court needed to determine if these arguments had merit and if the sentence was excessive or otherwise inappropriate.

Justice Peters dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellant's arguments were without merit. The court noted that no appeal could be brought against a conviction following a guilty plea, and there had been no application to vacate the guilty pleas. The court also rejected the Appellant's second submission that he was not subject to the provisions of the Act or the jurisdiction of the District Court, citing previous Court of Appeal decisions that had addressed and dismissed similar arguments. As for the sentence, Justice Peters found that it was unremarkable and did not warrant further comment, particularly since the Appellant had been discharged for the failing to stop charge.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original conviction and sentence. The Appellant's arguments were found to be without merit, and the sentence imposed was considered appropriate. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal in its entirety.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established