Yoganathan v Police

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA614/2015
[2016] NZCA 169

BETWEEN	RAGULAN YOGANATHAN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	5 April 2016
Court:	Wild, Clifford and Brewer JJ
Counsel:	A J Haskett for Applicant K S Grau for Respondent
Judgment:	4 May 2016 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is granted.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Brewer J)

Mr Yoganathan’s application for leave to appeal to this Court is granted. That will 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 the 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 appeal will be whether a miscarriage of justice occurred by reason of the District Court’s reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and on the evidential breath test.
[1]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.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington, for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Yoganathan v Police, Ragulan Yoganathan applied for leave to bring a second appeal against his conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, a charge found proved by Judge R J Russell in the Manukau District Court. The first appeal had been dismissed by the High Court. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Wild, Clifford, and Brewer JJ, granted the application for leave to appeal, allowing Mr Yoganathan to bring a second appeal. The primary legal issue in this second appeal was whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the District Court's reliance on the evidence of Dr Parbhu and the evidential breath test. The Court of Appeal indicated that it would consider this question in the context of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the criteria for granting leave to appeal, particularly focusing on whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred. While the Court noted that it was not required to provide detailed reasons for granting leave under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act, it did outline the central issue to be examined. The Court recognised that a miscarriage of justice involves a significant failure in the proceedings that undermines the fairness of the outcome. The appeal hinged on the reliability and admissibility of the evidence provided by Dr Parbhu and the evidential breath test, which were pivotal in the District Court's decision.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal, indicating that the appeal would focus on the potential miscarriage of justice arising from the District Court's reliance on specific evidence. By granting leave, the Court allowed Mr Yoganathan to challenge the conviction on the grounds that the evidence may have been improperly used, potentially leading to an unfair outcome. This decision paves the way for a comprehensive review of the evidence and the legal principles applied in the original trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established