BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER WALKER Appellant AND THE KING Respondent - [2024] NZCA 440

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA710/2023
[2024] NZCA 440

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER WALKER Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	1 August 2024
Court:	Courtney, Mander and Walker JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J G Fenton for Respondent
Judgment:	12 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeals against conviction and sentence are dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

Introduction

In October 2021 the police executed a search warrant at Christopher Walker’s address and found 42 cannabis plants, three hydroponic tents and implements associated with growing cannabis. He was charged with cultivating cannabis and elected trial by jury.[1] Shortly before the trial Mr Walker challenged the District Court’s jurisdiction over him. He asserted that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and that he was a “Freeman-on-the-Land” who did not consent to being subject to the law of New Zealand.
[1]Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9(2).
Judge Earwaker rejected Mr Walker’s immunity arguments in a pre-trial ruling.[2] Subsequently, Mr Walker pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to 150 hours’ community work and 12 months’ intensive supervision.[3] He appeals his conviction on the basis that the Judge’s decision regarding jurisdiction was wrong.[4] He appeals his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.[5]

Appeal against conviction

District Court pre-trial ruling

[2]R v Walker [2023] NZDC 7619 [pre-trial ruling].

[3]R v Walker [2023] NZDC 27612 [sentencing notes] at [21] and [22].

[4]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 229(1), 230(1)(c) and 232(2)(c). This Court is the first appeal court because Mr Walker initially elected trial by jury before he pleaded guilty: see Wirihana v R [2019] NZCA 368, [2019] 3 NZLR 549 at [15]–[25]. Mr Walker filed his appeal out of time but because the delay was reasonably short and was explicable, an extension of time was granted to bring the appeal by Katz J in a minute dated 14 February 2024.

[5]Criminal Procedure Act, ss 244(1), 247(1)(c), 250(2), 320(1)(b) and 321.

Section 9 of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1968 (DPI Act) applies to any organisation declared by the Governor-General by Order in Council to be an organisation of which two or more states or the Governments thereof are members.[6] Section 9(2)(a) provides that the Governor-General may from time to time by Order in Council provide that any organisation to which the section applies will have the privileges and immunities specified in sch 2. Schedule 2 confers immunity from suit or legal process.
[6]Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1968, s 9(1).
Mr Walker argued that he had diplomatic immunity pursuant to s 9(2)(a) on the basis of a document in the form of a card that described his position as a “Kaitiaki Diplomat”. The Judge described the document as follows:
[4] The back of the card says that the secured party of this card is acting under Tikanga and in accordance with the 1835 He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga O Nu Tireni,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER WALKER Appellant AND THE KING Respondent and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 440
Decision Date: 12 September 2024 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Christopher Walker, appeals against both his conviction and sentence for cultivating cannabis. He asserts that the District Court erred in its jurisdictional ruling and that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal rejected both appeals. The appellant argued that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity and that he was a "Freeman-on-the-Land," exempt from New Zealand law. The Court of Appeal found that the appellant's claims were variations of arguments previously rejected by the courts, specifically the sovereignty argument. The appellant’s assertion of diplomatic immunity was based on a document identifying him as a "Kaitiaki Diplomat," which the court did not recognise as a basis for immunity under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1968. Similarly, the appellant’s claim of being a "Freeman-on-the-Land" was rejected as it had been in prior cases. The court determined that no miscarriage of justice would result from upholding the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the Court of Appeal noted that the judge had considered the appellant’s personal circumstances and the absence of commercial intent, imposing a sentence of 150 hours of community work and 12 months of intensive supervision. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeals against both conviction and sentence were without merit. The jurisdictional ruling was correctly made, and the sentence was appropriate under the circumstances. The appeals are dismissed, affirming the District Court's decisions.

Orders