On the dangerous driving conviction, he claimed he was merely trying to disentangle the front bumper of his car from the rear bumper of the complainant's car.
He disputed drink driving, and claimed police filed false documents, alleged the documents were inadmissible as police had no permission to enter his home, and that he had consumed alcohol only after the incident.
When giving the Court of Appeal's reasons for dismissing Round's appeal, Justice Timothy Brewer referred to evidence presented in the District Court to Judge Josephine Bouchier.
"The evidence of the eye witnesses was clear that there was repeated ramming," Justice Brewer said.
Round, apparently in the throes of road rage, repeatedly rammed his motor vehicle into the rear of the complainant's vehicle.
Witnesses included a Fire and Emergency station officer on duty at the time.
"That this was dangerous driving is manifest. There is nothing in Mr Round's
allegation of bias."
After the incident, Round drove home and a little over an hour later police turned up at his house.
Round invited the police officers to enter his home, voluntarily gave a statement as to his version of events and showed the officers his vehicle, which was photographed.
Police officers had provided "clear evidence" of this to Judge Bouchier, Justice Brewer said.
A police officer then asked Round if he had consumed any alcohol that day.
Round said he had not had anything to drink at the time of the incident but that he had since consumed two glasses of wine.
Police did a breath test before taking Round to the police station for further testing.
Justice Brewer said he found "nothing" in Round's allegation police had filed false information.
He further supported Judge Bouchier's decision to accept the blood alcohol tests.
The Land Transport Act 1998 said the proportion of alcohol in a defendant's blood at the time of an alleged offence was the same as the proportion of alcohol in the defendant's blood indicated by a subsequent evidential blood test.
"This does not necessarily mean that a breath test or a blood test can properly be required at a point of time so remote from the suspected offence that its result could have no probative connection with the charge," Justice Brewer said.
"But that is not the case here."
Police administered a breath screening test between one-and-a-half and two hours after the incident.
When first asked about his alcohol consumption at his home, Round said he had not had anything to drink. He then said he had had two glasses of wine since arriving home.
After he knew the result of the breath screening test, he told police he had consumed "probably a bottle" of wine since getting home at (he said) about 4.45 pm.
At the police station, after he was told the result of the evidential breath test, he told the constable he had had at least a couple of bottles of wine and he asked the constable to make a note of that.
At the trial, he denied telling the constable he had consumed that amount.
He said he had had one bottle or most of one bottle of wine.
The constable's evidence was that while at the house he asked Round to show him where he had been drinking.
Round showed the constable to his bedroom, where they saw a full glass of wine beside a bottle of wine which was about three-quarters full. There was also an unopened bottle.
In denying leave to appeal, Justice Brewer said no matter of general or public importance had been identified, nor any indication of a miscarriage of justice.
