Land Transport Act 1998 Westlaw LexisNexis
Reckless and dangerous driving – s 7
s 7 Drivers not to be reckless or dangerous
(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven, recklessly.
(2) A person may not drive a motor vehicle …, or cause a motor vehicle to be driven …, at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances, is or might be dangerous to the public or to a person
Categories of Driving under s 7 or s 22 (driver’s duties where accident occurs)
For discussion of the requirements for reckless driving, and the three categories of driving offences in New Zealand, refer to D’Almeida v Auckland City Council HC Auckland M377/84.
Inferring Reckless Driving
Whiteman v Ministry of Transport CA147/80 [1980] NZCA 74, and Armstrong v Police HC Palmerston North AP267/91 establish that reckless intent may be inferred from a deliberate episode of substandard driving. Whiteman further esablished that in any given situation there may be a mixture of actual and potential danger.
Dangerous Driving
The requirement for an defendant to be found to have driven dangerously is discussed in Ebert v Transport Department [1967] NZLR 459 (CA): It must be shown that the driver failed to meet the standard of care expected of a reasonable and competent driver.
What evidence is relevant in order to prove dangerous driving was pointed out in Stratford v Ministry of Transport HC Nelson M38/91.
Speed is not determinative. All that is required is that the court is satisfied the speed was of a degree that might have been dangerous to the public: Tribe v Jones (1961) 105 Sol J 931; Gutierrez v Police HC Auckland AP269/95.
Defences to Dangerous Driving
If the defendant can prove that they have not created an obectively dangerous situation, or that they are not at fault, they will not be liable under s 7. For discussion of fault, refer to R v JonesCA239/85.
Where a sudden emergency exists, this will act as a defence to objectively dangerous driving. A defence of necessity may also be available. This was discussed in Kapi v Ministry of Transport CA 208/91.
Causing death
s 36AA Land Transport Act 1998 Westlaw LexisNexis
McKee v Hawira HC Hamilton AP123/88 presents discussion of sentencing of those convicted of the most serious contraventions of s 7.
Sentencing for manslaughter arising from use of motor vehicle is not always the same for similar offences provided under transport legislation. There are some situations where the maximum sentence for manslaughter would be inadequate. This was the case in R v Marsh CA59/90.
Careless Driving
s 8 Drivers not to be careless or inconsiderate
A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons
s 38 – careless driving causing injury or death
The lower threshold for a driver to be found to have driven carelessly, when compared the standard required for dangerous driving, is explained in R v Seymour 11/2/97, Robertson J, HC Auckland T305/96.
Under s 37(2)(b), courts are able to disqualify persons from driving. The requirements for doing so were discussed in Hodgson v Police HC Hamilton A140/98.
Imposing a penalty is not done to punish a breaches of the law but to maintain standards in the common interest. See Jordaan v Police HC Auckland A123/99.
The principles for assessing the quantum of a penalty were discussed in Hayman v Police HC Palmerston North AP38/01