The Queen v Wood

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA98/06
THE QUEEN
v
LEON DEREK WOOD
Hearing:7 August 2006

Court:William Young P, Robertson and Arnold JJ
Counsel:Appellant in person

A M Powell for Crown

Judgment:15 August 2006 at 11am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by William Young P)
[1]       The appellant was convicted in the District Court on a charge of speeding. His appeal against conviction was dismissed in the High Court as was a later application for leave to appeal to this Court.
[2]       He now applies to this Court for leave to appeal.
[3]       The issues which he raised before us are all variations on two themes: first, the infringement notice supplied to him in relation to the speeding incident contained errors (as to his age and the make of vehicle he was driving) and secondly that the decision of the District Court to the effect that he was speeding was wrong.
[4]       In the District Court all the police had to prove was that he committed the offence. The accuracy of the particulars in the infringement notice was not fundamental to the case. So the complaint about the infringement notice does not give rise to any legal issue on which we have jurisdiction to grant leave.
[5]       The appellant’s primary complaint is as to the conclusion that he was speeding. But this is an entirely factual issue. We do not have jurisdiction to revisit factual findings made in the District Court and High Court.
[6]       In short, we are unable to discern an arguable point of law in the proposed appeal. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Wood, the appellant, Leon Derek Wood, contested his conviction for speeding, which was initially decided in the District Court. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed in the High Court, and he subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant's arguments centered on two primary points: the alleged inaccuracies in the infringement notice provided to him, and the correctness of the District Court's determination that he was speeding. The Court of Appeal, consisting of William Young P, Robertson, and Arnold JJ, considered the appeal on August 7, 2006, and delivered its judgment on August 15, 2006.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the alleged errors in the infringement notice were fundamental to the case and if there was any arguable point of law justifying an appeal. The Court noted that the District Court only needed to establish that the appellant committed the offence, and the accuracy of the infringement notice particulars was not essential to the case. Therefore, the Court found that the complaint about the infringement notice did not present a legal issue that warranted the Court's intervention. Furthermore, the Court held that the appellant's primary contention about the speeding determination was a factual matter, which the Court of Appeal is not empowered to revisit. Consequently, the Court was unable to identify any arguable point of law in the proposed appeal.

As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The Court concluded that there was no basis for the Court to grant leave to appeal, as no arguable point of law was discernible in the proposed appeal. The legal team representing the Crown was represented by A M Powell, while the appellant appeared in person. The final orders of the Court were delivered by William Young P on behalf of the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established