Bees v Police
[2024] NZHC 3321
•8 November 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CRI-2024-425-37
[2024] NZHC 3321
BETWEEN JAMES GORDON BEES
(known as JIMMY) Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 4 November 2024 Appearances:
Appellant in person (via VMR from Queenstown Court) Daniel Son as support person
S McKenzie for the Respondent
Judgment:
8 November 2024
JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal by James Gordon Bees against his convictions and subsequent sentences for refusing a requirement to permit a blood specimen to be taken,1 failing to comply with a request to provide his name and address2 and failing to remain stopped for an enforcement order.3 He has also appealed against the requirement that he pay an offender levy however he has no such appeal right. I will refer to the appellant as “Jimmy” in this judgment, as that is his preferred form of address.
[2]The Police oppose the appeal.
1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 60(1A), (2) and (72)(1)(a); maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $4,500.
2 Section 52(1)(c); maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
3 Sections 52A(1)(b) and 114; maximum penalty $10,000 fine.
BEES v POLICE [2024] NZHC 3321 [8 November 2024]
[3] I have decided to dismiss the appeal. This judgment sets out my reasons for doing so.
The hearing in the District Court
[4] The case against Jimmy proceeded by way of Judge alone trial in the Queenstown District Court on 30 July 2024.4 I have had the benefit of reading the notes of evidence from that hearing. I note from them that, although Jimmy represented himself, he was supported by Ms T Surrey as standby counsel.
[5] At the outset, Jimmy submitted that the presiding Judge did not have jurisdiction over him. In relation to the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction, Jimmy said:
I have a simple right to know where the jurisdiction comes from over me a natural living man, that’s reasonable enough on my part. It comes from the King who has sworn an oath to protect and serve the people and uphold the law, uphold the law is a statutory law. This is a claim against the person which a legal definition 2019 part 2 section 13 indicates a person is an incorporated body, a corporate soul, an incorporated soul or body corporate, not a natural man. I am a natural man and if you can prove otherwise I’m happy to deal with the allegations here today.
[6] After interacting with the Judge about this and the Judge advising him that there was jurisdiction to proceed with the case against him, the Police prosecutor called his first witness, Constable Singh.
[7] Constable Singh told the Court that, on 21 December 2023 at about 9.00 pm, he was on duty with Sergeant Chirnside conducting an alcohol breath test checkpoint near the Albert Town bridge at Wānaka. A white Subaru came to the checkpoint. When Constable Singh greeted the driver, stating that breath testing for alcohol was being undertaken, the driver asked him if there was a warrant or if he was wanted and further relayed that he did not consent to undergoing breath testing. When the driver was asked to pull over to the side of the road and park the car, he moved forward and took off from the checkpoint. Constable Singh did not know at that time who the driver was, but it is clear from what happened later that the driver was Jimmy.
4 Police v Bees [2024] NZDC 19447.
[8] At this point, Sergeant Chirnside got into his vehicle and followed the driver, and Constable Singh followed in his vehicle. The driver was seen to turn into a campground just past the Albert Town bridge. Sergeant Chirnside followed the vehicle into the campground, but Constable Singh waited at the entrance, he said, just in case the driver tried to exit the campground.
[9]It was at this point in the evidence that Jimmy objected, stating:
I’d like to object, you keep referring, I imagine you’re referring to James Bees, you keep referring to him as the driver, the driver is, the man was not a driver, simply a man, please refer to him as James. He’s not the driver, I’m not the driver, I’m a natural man, please stop labelling me.
[10] There was a further interaction between Jimmy and the Judge and then the evidence continued.
[11] Constable Singh said he became aware that the driver had been placed under arrest and he was directed to “stay with the car and organise other stuff”. He was then advised that the driver was to be transported to Queenstown custody overnight. He and another constable transported the driver halfway to Queenstown when the custody of the driver was transferred to another Police Queenstown-based unit.
[12] Jimmy was given the opportunity to cross-examine Constable Singh. Before this, in another interaction with the Judge, he said:
I just it to be know, I’m in the Court, let the Court be known, you keep referring to me as Mr Bees, I am not Mr Bees, I am simply James Gordon of the House Bees, I’m the royal subject, I do not consent to contract or joinder, I waive all benefits on offer here today. I am not the legal fictionous [sic] corporation name that you keep addressing. Let it be known, I am not the legal fiction name that you keep addressing as Mr Bees. Please refer to me moving forward as simply James. I do not consent to contract or a joinder, I waive all benefits on offer here today.
[13]Jimmy then proceeded to ask Constable Singh questions.
Q. Mr Singh, are you familiar with the legal maxim consensual facit legem, are you familiar with this legal maxim.
A. I don’t believe I am familiar with that term.
Q. Okay, as we know ignorance of the law is no excuse of one, consensus facit legem maxim means there’s no consent makes the law. I have made it clear over and over that I have not consented. Consensual facit legem.
[14] The Judge intervened. He advised Jimmy that the witness did not need his consent. There was a further interaction between the Judge and Jimmy about the topic of consent during which Jimmy said:
I did not consent to, I haven’t consented to any of it. I do not consent to this here today. I do not consent to jurisdiction. You do not have the jurisdiction over me.
[15] Jimmy then sought to ask Constable Singh how many people he misrepresented “all the time, yearly?”. The Judge directed the witness not to answer that question. There were again interactions between Jimmy and the Judge about this, with the Judge ruling that the question was not relevant to the charges before the Court, and Jimmy disagreeing with the Judge.
[16] When the questioning of Constable Singh continued, it focused on whether, under the New Zealand legislation, a driver is a person driving. Jimmy then referred to what I infer to be the Legislation Act 2019 and, in particular, s 13 of that Act. This section defines certain terms that apply to all legislation. “Person” is defined to include “a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body”. Jimmy attempted to ask the constable whether he knew what a body corporate and corporation were but the Judge ruled that these questions were not relevant.
[17] Jimmy then asked Constable Singh if the constable recognised and saw him as a natural living man. Again, the Judge intervened on the grounds of relevance. There was the following interaction between the Judge and Jimmy:
Q. We all see you as a natural living man. Get to relevance.
A. The relevance is that you are charging, the charge is against the person and –
Q. And you say that you are not a person?
A. The person, I am not in the legal definition, your legal definition of person, would you please define it for me.
Q. No I’m not going to define it. Are you saying that you are not a legal person?
A. I’m not a legal person, no.
Q. Okay, thank you, got your point. Any other questions?
A. Well if I’m not a legal person and this is a false claim against me the natural person. This is a claim against the person. I’ve made it clear, you’ve agreed that I’m not a legal person –
Q. No I didn’t. No that’s what you’re saying, I’m repeating what you’re saying. You are saying that you are not a legal person. That’s the point that you’re making.
A. Of course I’m not. Define legal.
Q. No I’m not. If you have got a question –
A. I do have questions –
Q. - that is relevant –
A. - these are all very relevant. I’m am questioning.
[18] Jimmy then attempted to ask Constable Singh about his jurisdiction and authority “against me the natural living man”. The Judge did not permit the question on the grounds of relevance. The Judge said:
Q. Do you have any more questions other than around whether you are a legal person or not?
A. No. Let it be known also I’m not Mr Bees.
Q. Thank you, sit down.
A. No I’ll continue to stand, I have to stand, I’ve got a bad back, I don’t want to sit. I don’t want sit, I’d rather stand thank you.
[19] The next witness for the Police was Sergeant Chirnside. He confirmed what Constable Singh had said about the attempt to stop the vehicle and how he followed the vehicle that had failed to stop into the Albert Town campground. Sergeant Chirnside then said he drove about 50 m through the entrance where he observed the car to be stopping. He got out of his vehicle and approached the driver’s door to speak to the driver. After winding the window down about 100 mm, Sergeant Chirnside said that he asked the driver for his identity. He said the driver responded by starting to “demand why he was being stopped and questioning is there a warrant and is he wanted or is there a warrant for his arrest”. Sergeant Chirnside explained that he was not aware of any warrant for the driver’s arrest but that he was simply stopping him as
he had left the checkpoint before procedures could be completed. Sergeant Chirnside explained that, under the Land Transport Act 1998, the driver needed to provide him with his details but the driver had refused to do so. Sergeant Chirnside made a recording on his phone of his last request to the driver asking him to provide his details. This recording was played to the Court.
[20] The driver was then warned that he would be arrested if he did not supply the necessary details, but the debate continued about whether there was a warrant or whether the driver was wanted or not, with Sergeant Chirnside warning the driver that, if he did not get out of the vehicle, the window would have to be broken to get in to get him out. The driver drove off but stopped 10 m further and got out of his car. He explained that he was only getting out of the vehicle so that his car was not damaged.
[21] At this point, the driver was placed under arrest, his rights were explained to him but, when asked whether he understood those rights, the driver said “I don’t understand what you are saying. You’re speaking law. I don’t speak law.”. The driver was placed in handcuffs and handed over to Constable Campbell. Sergeant Chirnside said he “could smell” the alcohol coming from him.
[22] At this point during the hearing, Jimmy objected, stating that there was no proof of this. The Judge advised Jimmy that he could ask the witness questions at the end of his evidence in chief.
[23] Jimmy was driven to the Wānaka Police station for processing and was dealt with by Constable Campbell but Sergeant Chirnside said that he continued to oversee the situation and again recorded the sort of interactions that were taking place between the constable and Jimmy. A second phone recording was played in evidence.
[24] After the procedures at the Police Station had been completed, Jimmy was offered bail but refused to sign a bail bond, stating that “he does not sign contracts”.
[25] Jimmy then asked Sergeant Chirnside questions. The sergeant confirmed that he had threatened to smash Jimmy’s car window, he agreed that Jimmy was held at the
Police station against his will and he also agreed that what had occurred was not a victim-related offence.
[26] Jimmy then asked the sergeant questions about policing by consent. The sergeant accepted that Jimmy had not consented multiple times. Jimmy wanted the sergeant to agree with his interpretation of consent which was that he did not consent to the sergeant “doing your policing”. There were then various interactions with the Judge about the issue of consent and what policing by consent might mean. The point Jimmy appeared to be making was that, because he did not consent to being policed by the Police, he was unable to be detained by them.
[27] Jimmy then referred to “consensus facit legem” which means “consent makes the law”. It is a term that applies to the law of contract, not the criminal law. The Judge responded as follows:
Q. Stop. Do you have any questions to as[k] this witness. You can make submissions at the end, but do you have any more questions to ask this particular witness?
A. I’m going to be taking this as an appeal because I know that you are most likely to find me guilty based on all this and I shall be appeal, and I shall make tort claims against each and every one of you.
Q. Thank you. Do you have any questions for the witness anymore. Anymore questions?
A. No I don’t have any more questions to him. I just letting it be known that I’ve been not consent to any of this over and over and over –
Q. Thank you. That’s a submission, don’t make a – I’ll give you an opportunity at the end.
A. This is a joke.
[28] Sergeant Chirnside was then re-examined by the Police prosecutor, after which Jimmy stated he would like to ask some more questions in re-examination. The Judge declined his request on the basis that the witness was not his witness. Jimmy responded by referring to this as “perversion in the course of justice”.
[29] Constable Campbell was then called to give evidence. She was present at the alcohol checkpoint and confirmed what she had observed about the vehicle not stopping at the checkpoint. She however noted that the vehicle had a personalised
plate “THE END” with one of the “E’s” being a 3. Her evidence was much the same as that which had been presented to the Court by the other two Police witnesses, Sergeant Chirnside in particular. The fact that Jimmy did not consent to the process was also referred to by this witness.
[30] Constable Campbell requested that Jimmy undertake a breath screening test, which he declined. This was followed by a requirement that he undergo an evidential breath test, which he declined as well. The 10 minute period during which he could elect to have a blood test taken followed but Jimmy did not elect to have a blood test. Jimmy was then required to provide a blood sample, which he declined to do.
[31] As a result of the procedures undertaken and Jimmy’s response to them, he was charged. He declined to sign his bail bond and was transported to Queenstown Police station where he was held overnight in custody.
[32] Jimmy’s cross-examination of Constable Campbell was initially focused on putting to her that it was a criminal offence to block the highway and to hinder a person’s travel on the highway, which he suggested was the effect of the Police checkpoint. The Judge intervened, questioning the relevance of this. Jimmy also asked the constable to confirm that there was no victim involved and he traversed the theme he had previously raised about policing by consent.
[33] The Police case concluded with the evidence of Constable Campbell. Jimmy elected not to give evidence. However, in submissions he said:
A. As I mentioned at the beginning, as we mentioned, we are the not the person, corporation, legal entity that was summonsed here today and I cannot assist you any further in this matter. I’ve tried to settle the matter as beneficiary of the trust on my own and I feel there’s a misjustice against myself being a natural living man. Actus non facit recm nisi mens sit rea which in the legal maxim is a man is not culpable – the act if not culpable if the man is not guilty. I believe I was carry out my freedom of travel. I believe I was also, I made it clear that I didn’t consent to their policing which I believe is my right. I also feel and believe and know that I’ve got (inaudible …) treat me like a slave which has been a (inaudible …) so that’s my, that’s how I stand. As I say I am not the person, legal entity or corporation that was summonsed here today. I thank you all for your times.
[34] The Judge issued an oral judgment, finding on the evidence that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. About Jimmy’s case, the Judge said:
[17] The defendant elected not to call or give evidence. It is clear, however, from the submissions made by him throughout the hearing and the questions asked of witnesses, that he does not regard the Court as having any jurisdiction in relation to him. He also maintained that these were victimless offences. He declined to use the name in the charging documents, and he was detained in custody for a period after I held that he was in contempt for disrupting the Court.
[18] After indicating that I would deal with the matter in his absence, he spoke to the duty lawyer, Ms Surrey, following which the defendant indicated that he would take part in the trial, and he did so.
[19] At the end of the evidence, I took the luncheon adjournment and then invited submissions. The defendant made submissions which boiled down to the fact that he regards himself as a special class of citizen for whom the laws of New Zealand do not apply. He reiterated that he is not a person with legal entity and that he was the beneficiary of a trust. He regarded the prosecution as being unjust and that he was not culpable and that he was simply ‘carrying out his freedom of travel’, which of course is not an unfettered one.
[35] The Judge then proceeded to enter convictions against Jimmy and fined him the sum of $800, ordered him to pay court costs of $143 on the charge of refusing a blood specimen and Jimmy was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of eight months. In relation to the charge of failing to remain stopped, Jimmy was convicted and fined $400 and ordered to pay court costs; on the charge of failing to give his name and address on demand, he was convicted and fined
$300 and ordered to pay court costs. He was convicted and discharged on the charge of failing to answer Police bail.
The appeal
Jurisdiction
[36]Jimmy started his submissions to the Court on appeal as follows:
Well, I would just like to make a note and for the record that it be heard that I have come here to settle and correct a matter. I am here in my natural state as a natural living man and I have made it quite clear that I have not consented to contract or joinder and to not act as surety to any fictionist names or entities and reserve the right to the definition of Sui Juris. There has been misrepresentation or presentation that my natural state has not been acknowledged and overridden each time and I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I have been travelling and acting in my private capacity and I
have not consented to contract or a joinder from start to finish. As misrepresentation or presentation is fraudulent, that nulls all contracts, all contracts are null and void in my understanding.
[37]Following that, Jimmy also said:
There is also the s 240, deception by misrepresentation which I believe has also been carried out. Your Honour, I have also found it very intimidating and threatening each time I have been in this District Court, every time I go to approach a question regarding my natural state and let them know that I am here in my natural state, I have been pushed back and threatened with being put in the downstairs detention area which is said to me on numerous occasions now when I come here. As I say, I find it quite hostile and intimidating and threatening on all occasions.
[38] When referring to s 240, Jimmy explained that he was referring to deception by misrepresentation in the Crimes Act 1961. He made the point that he had emphasised he is not the fictional name, which he said was the “charge of a person”. In respect of this, he referred to s 13 of the Legislation Act, which I have outlined above.
[39] Jimmy referred to art 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights dealing with slavery. In relation to this, he submitted:
That all forms of slavery have been abolished. Including serfdom and then using an instrument to make me, being a man, a natural living man, do what they want using a driver’s licence to make me do what they want is an act of slavery in the first degree your Honour.
[40] Framing this argument, Jimmy submitted that, by requiring him to use a driver’s licence, he considered this to be an act of slavery because a licence is an instrument designed to make him do what others want him to do. Because he did not consent to this and because he claimed it was his inalienable right to freedom of expression and freedom of movement, this meant that he was able to carry out this right (his freedom to travel) upon the day he was arrested.
[41] Jimmy reiterated the point that he considered that policing by consent meant he was at liberty to do what he wished to carry out his rights, which included not consenting to be policed.
[42]In conclusion, he said:
As I say, I feel I’ve been imprisoned, I have been intimidated, I have been threatened, I was threatened, my window was ….. window smashed, my car was impounded, it has cost me multiple time and there has not been a victim whatsoever that has been harmed or injured in this case and, as I said, from the clear and at this point I would like to finish it with I have not consented to contracted or a joinder to the legal name from the outset.
[43] Jimmy also filed an affidavit, referred to as an affidavit of condition acceptance, in the Queenstown District Court on the morning of the hearing. The document is difficult to understand but, in part, reaffirms the arguments he made which I have quoted above. But, as well, Jimmy highlighted that he has never claimed to be a sovereign citizen and, I infer, he disputed that therefore he should be categorised as one.
Principles on appeal
[44] An appeal against conviction can only be allowed if I am satisfied that the Judge made an error in his assessment of the evidence to such an extent that a miscarriage of justice has occurred or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any reason. This test is outlined in s 232(2)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) that applies to appeals against conviction.
[45] Case law has determined that a miscarriage of justice means any error, irregularity or occurrence in relation to a trial or hearing that has created a real risk that the outcome of the trial was affected or has resulted in an unfair trial.5
[46] As is required, the appeal before me has proceeded by way of a rehearing and I must form my own view about the facts.6 The important point to note about this is that Jimmy did not effectively challenge the evidence of the Police that related to the elements the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order for each charge to be found to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, Jimmy’s case is founded on his submission and perception, which I have no doubt he genuinely holds, that charges cannot be brought against him if he has not consented to them applying to him. As a natural person, Jimmy argues that he is able to make this choice and, if he has not made it, then the laws of the state do not apply to him.
5 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 232(4).
6 Sena v Police [2019] NZSC 55, [2019] 1 NZLR 575 at [26]-[32].
Discussion
[47] Although Jimmy says he does not describe himself as a sovereign citizen, following his submissions as best I can, it seems to me that the Court of Appeal’s observations in Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections also encapsulate a similar belief system evidence in the arguments Jimmy presented to me during his appeal.7 In that case, Katz J summarised the belief system as being based on the proposition that individuals have two persona, one of flesh and blood and the other a separate legal or corporate personality that is subject to the jurisdiction of the state. Because of this, someone who adheres to this belief system can disassociate themselves from their legal or corporate persona and free themselves from the jurisdiction of the state. Jimmy’s reliance on the definition of person in s 13 of the Legislation Act supports my interpretation that this is part of his argument.
[48] However, as Katz J also said, Acts of Parliament, including criminal enactments (this includes the Land Transport Act) are binding on all people within the geographic territory of New Zealand. As Katz J said, the courts have the power to deal with all actions that may amount to criminal offences in New Zealand and no person within New Zealand is able to disassociate themselves from their legal persona so as to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the court.
[49] For this reason, Jimmy is not able to simply claim that, because he does not consent to certain laws or the Police enforcing those laws, they do not apply to him. As a matter of law, they do. But, as well, the s 13 argument is misconceived. The definition of “person” provided for in s 13 of the Act is an inclusive definition. This means that, while it covers the entities referred to in that definition, it does not exclude the definition applying to a natural person or a natural living man, as Jimmy accepts he is.
[50] But, as well and to be clear, s 240 of the Crimes Act does not apply to what happened here, neither does art 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Human Rights.
7 Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [9].
[51] I accept that Jimmy may well have found that what happened to him that evening intimidating but none of it would have arisen had he complied with his legal obligations to give his name and address, and to undertake the initial breath screening procedure. On this point, I accept Jimmy’s explanation that he had been at the gym and not drinking, and disregard Sergeant Chirnside’s evidence that he thought he could smell alcohol on Jimmy’s breath on this was not relevant to the charges Jimmy faced. Had Jimmy given the constable his name and address, and participated in a breath screening test which was negative, that would have been the end of the matter and he would have been free to go on his way home.
[52] There are no grounds upon which the appeal against Jimmy’s convictions can succeed. His appeal against his convictions is dismissed.
[53] As to whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (the legal test I must apply to a sentence appeal) and although I have no doubt that, in total, the fines and court costs are a large amount for him to pay, within the context of what occurred and the maximum penalties provided for by law, I cannot conclude that the fines imposed were manifestly excessive.8 The appeal against the sentences imposed by the Judge is also dismissed.
Result
[54] The appeal against both the convictions and sentences imposed by the District Court are dismissed.
Harland J
Counsel:
P R Law, Invercargill
Copy to:
G J Bees, Appellant
8 Tutakangahau v R [2014] NZCA 279, [2014] 3 NZLR 482 at [36]; Ripia v R [2011] NZCA 101 at [15].
0
4
0