Barrett v Police

[2017] NZHC 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2017-419-48 [2017] NZHC 2011

BETWEEN

GRAHAM KERE BARRETT

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	22 August 2017
Appearances:	Appellant in person J E Tarrant for Respondent
Judgment:	22 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 August 2017 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Almao Douch (Hamilton) for Respondent

BARRETT v POLICE [2017] NZHC 2011 [22 August 2017]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Barrett appeals his convictions on one charge of failing to stop and one charge of resisting a constable in the execution of his duty.1

Background

[2]      The charges arose from an incident on 11 May 2016.  Officers in a marked patrol car saw that Mr Barrett was driving a motor vehicle that did not have number plates.  The two officers in the patrol car pursued Mr Barrett with the flashing blue and red lights activated and, latterly, the siren sounding.  At one point Mr Barrett pulled to the side of the road, while still moving, and gestured for the patrol car to pass him.   The patrol car came alongside Mr Barrett’s car and one of the police officers shouted for him to stop.   Nevertheless, Mr Barrett continued driving, but eventually pulled his car over and stopped.  At that point he refused to get out of the car and eventually had to be pulled out by the police officers.

[3]      Mr Barrett contested the charges and there was a hearing in front of Judge Burnett.  Mr Barrett gave evidence.  The Judge commented that there were no real disputes of fact and that Mr Barrett’s defence centred on a Maori sovereignty argument. The Judge entered convictions accordingly.

Discussion

[4]      Mr Barrett, who is representing himself, has filed no submissions other than documentation relating to his sovereignty argument.   He appeared for himself this morning accompanied by a person who I do not know but who I allowed to sit with Mr Barrett as a support person.

[5]      Mr Barrett handed up some further documents which do not go to anything that I can have regard to when looking at the lawfulness of his convictions.

[6]      In  oral  submissions,  Mr  Barrett  challenged  my  jurisdiction.    I  got  the impression that he, consistent with the arguments he had advanced as to sovereignty,

1      Police v Barrett [2017] NZDC 15474.

was making a general  challenge as to the existence of any jurisdiction for any purpose.  I pointed out that if he were correct, then there was little to be gained by him making further submissions to me.

[7]      I attempted to engage further with Mr Barrett to see whether, apart from the documents he had handed up, there were any real concerns about the propriety of the convictions.   It soon became clear that Mr Barrett was there only to hand up the documents and that he had no real knowledge of them.  It was clear that the support person had the dominant role, and I reserved my decision and retired when she stood to address me and would not sit down.

Result

[8]      The appeal is without merit.  It is dismissed accordingly.

Brewer J