Bees v Police - [2024] NZHC 3321

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bees v Police

Details

AGLC: Bees v Police [2024] NZHC 3321
Case: [2024] NZHC 3321
Decision Date: 8 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

James Gordon Bees, referred to as Jimmy, appealed his convictions and sentences for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken, failing to comply with a request to provide his name and address, and failing to remain stopped for an enforcement order. He also appealed the requirement to pay an offender levy, although he lacks the right to appeal that particular requirement. The Police opposed the appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

The central issue in the appeal was whether the Queenstown District Court had jurisdiction over Jimmy. He argued that he was a natural man and not a legal person, thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. He also claimed that he did not consent to being policed and therefore the laws did not apply to him. The Court found that his arguments were misconceived. The definition of "person" in the Legislation Act 2019 includes a natural person, and therefore, the laws do apply to him. The Court also found that s 240 of the Crimes Act and art 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not apply to the circumstances of the case.

The Court held that the appeal against the convictions was without merit as Jimmy had not effectively challenged the evidence presented by the Police. The Court found that the fines and court costs imposed were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against the sentences. Therefore, the appeal against both the convictions and sentences was dismissed.

Orders