Blissett v Commissioner of Police
[2025] NZHC 123
•11 February 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2025-488-11
[2025] NZHC 123
UNDER the Senior Courts Act 2016 (Public) of New Zealand, Section 12, Crown Proceedings Act 1950 (Public) of New Zealand IN THE MATTER OF
the NEW ZEALAND POLICE
BETWEEN
DIONE T BLISSETT
Applicant
AND
APPOINTED COMMISSIONER, SENIOR POLICE CONSTABLE, WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND. POLICE NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, WELLINGTON, “CROWN IN RIGHT OF NEW
ZEALAND”
Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
D Blissett, Applicant in person
Judgment:
11 February 2025
JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J
This judgment is delivered by me on 11 February 2025 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
…………………………………………….
Deputy Registrar
To:
The Applicant (D T Blissett)
BLISSETT v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2025] NZHC 123 [11 February 2025]
Introduction
[1] On 28 April 2022, Dione Blissett sought the New Zealand equivalent of an Australian heavy transport driver’s licence, which he claimed he had been issued by the Road and Maritime Services New South Wales in 1998. His application was rejected by the AA office in Whangārei, which is treated as a decision of the NZTA. Mr Blissett unsuccessfully appealed to the District Court.1 He filed a lengthy affidavit concerning his criminal proceedings and convictions in Australia, his deportation to New Zealand and related proceedings, and his application for a licence. Mr Blissett submitted that his application to convert his Australian driver’s licence into a New Zealand licence was declined because of by “fraudulent” NZTA records showing that he had previously held a New Zealand licence issued in 1994. He alleged corruption and fraud by the Australian and New Zealand governments.
[2] Mr Blissett seeks to file new proceedings in this Court claiming that NZTA declined his driver’s licence application due to “fraudulent” records showing he had previously held a New Zealand licence. He claimed these records were created as an afterthought or to substantiate “fraudulent” records that he was convicted in 1995 for careless driving and refusing to provide a blood sample. Mr Blissett argued this “fraud” has prevented him from obtaining a licence and from operating as a commercial driver of heavy vehicles, for which he now seeks compensation. He also submitted that the Police interfered in his first attempt to file an originating application for a temporary licence by instructing the registry to reject it on the basis that he already had one.
[3] The Registrar referred this matter to me as duty Judge.2 The issue for determination is whether the proceedings amount to a plain abuse of court process.
1 Blissett v Director of the New Zealand Transport Agency [2023] NZDC 13746.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 5.35A. The Registrar may refer a proceeding to a Judge where there is cause for concern that the proceeding amounts to an abuse of court process. As noted by the Registrar, the documents filed by Mr Blissett meet the formatting requirements under rr 5.3–5.16.
District Court decision
[4] Judge Rzepecky considered the scope of the appeal in the District Court was limited to whether the NZTA was correct in rejecting Mr Blissett’s application for a licence. His Honour dismissed Mr Blissett’s appeal, holding that the NZTA was correct to reject Mr Blissett’s application as it did not provide reliable and timely information proving he had a valid Australian licence at the time of his application.3 The issue of whether Mr Blissett had previously held a New Zealand driver’s licence was not relevant to Judge Rzepecky’s decision.
[5] Moreover, the fact that Mr Blissett had not formerly held such a licence was admitted in the affidavit of Ari McBrearty in opposition to Mr Blissett’s appeal. Mr McBrearty explained that the National Driver Licence Register had a record for Mr Blissett (despite the fact that he has never held a New Zealand licence) in order to record his disqualifications from holding or obtaining a licence in 1995. Therefore, the number in the “licence” field was a unique identifier generated by the Police to record his disqualifications rather than a licence number. Mr McBrearty claimed that two other fields in his record were filled in automatically by the registry system, one of which was likely due to system changes in 2000.
[6] After his District Court appeal was dismissed, Mr Blissett had previously attempted to pursue a further appeal in the High Court.4 In the affidavit attached to that notice of appeal, Mr Blissett asserted that Judge Rzepecky had dismissed his appeal on the incorrect understanding that he had previously held a New Zealand licence and because of concerns that his application could be a fraudulent document.5 Alongside the same orders sought in the District Court, Mr Blissett also requested that
3 In particular, the “certified driving record” provided by Mr Blissett in support of his application was dated 15 September 2018, and therefore could not speak to whether his Australian licence remained current in 2022. It is also worth noting that Mr Blissett’s own evidence appeared to suggest that his Australian licence was suspended and therefore not eligible for recognition under r 88(3)(b) of the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rules 1999.
4 Mr Blissett states that this appeal was not accepted for filing by the registry, but he does not provide details about why his notice of appeal was declined. In this context, it is worth noting that a party seeking to appeal such a District Court decision to this Court can only do so to determine a question of law pursuant to s 111A of the Land Transport Act 1998 — Mr Blissett’s notice of appeal did not identify any question of law.
5 Neither of these reflected Judge Rzepecky’s grounds for dismissing Mr Blissett’s appeal, which was (as noted above) that Mr Blissett had failed to provide evidence that his Australian licence was valid at the time of his application.
this Court refer Judge Rzepecky, the former and current directors of the NZTA, the Registrar, the Chief District Court Judge and the Crown solicitor for investigation and prosecution.6
Submissions
[7] To compensate him for the lost profits he could have obtained by working as a commercial driver of heavy vehicles, and to compensate him for the Police’s various alleged breaches, Mr Blissett seeks $683,432 (including interest) and costs.
Legal Principles
[8] Rule 5.35B provides that if the Court is satisfied that a proceeding is plainly an abuse of court process, then an order or directions can be issued to ensure the proceeding is disposed of or proceeds in a way that complies with the rules. This includes orders that the proceeding be struck out or stayed.
[9] Further, strike-out under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly and will depend on the circumstances and nature of the abuse of process.7 The meaning of a “plainly abusive proceeding” is not defined in the rules. However, r 5.35B has been used where a proceeding amounts to a collateral challenge to, or seeks to relitigate, issues already determined.8 In those circumstances, an appeal would be the proper process.
Discussion
[10] These proceedings address the same issues as Mr Blissett’s previous appeal.9 Although Mr Blissett has brought the current proceedings against the Commissioner of Police rather than the NZTA, the issue remains his contention that he was entitled to the New Zealand equivalent of an Australian heavy transport driver’s licence which he sought in April 2022. This is clear from the relief he seeks in this proceeding: compensation for lost income he claims he could have obtained via such a licence
6 He also sought that Judge Rzepecky be subject to a judicial inquiry.
7 Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu ki Waitangi v Waitangi National Trust Board [2023] NZCA 63; and
O’Neill v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZCA 501 at [23].
8 See Jason Bull (ed) McGechan on Procedure (online ed, Thomson Reuters) at [HR5.35A.02(2)(i)].
9 See above at [1] and [4]–[6].
through the commercial operation of heavy vehicles. Yet this issue has already been considered and determined by the NZTA and the District Court on appeal.
[11] Mr Blissett now seeks to collaterally challenge the NZTA and District Court decisions through this proceeding. This re-litigation of settled issues is a plain abuse of process. Accordingly, I strike out Mr Blissett’s claim, as currently framed.10
Decision
[12] Pursuant to r 5.35B(2)(a), Mr Blissett’s proceeding is struck out. Rule 5.35B(3) requires Mr Blissett to be advised of his right to appeal to the Court of Appeal against this decision. Mr Blissett is formally notified of that right.
Harvey J
10 If Mr Blissett does wish to relitigate these issues, it must be through a proper appeal pathway, such as an appeal to the High Court on a question of law pursuant to s 111A of the Land Transport Act 1998. That said, any such appeal would have to overcome the reasons for which his previous appeal to the High Court was declined for filing. In the alternative, he must refine and refile his proceeding so as to avoid relitigating, or collaterally challenging, the past findings of the NZTA and District Court — in particular, their finding that he was not entitled to the relevant driver’s licence as at April 2022.