Bradley v Police

[2014] NZHC 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CRI 2013-409-000124 [2014] NZHC 185

ALEXANDER WILLIAM BRADLEY Appellant

v

POLICE Respondent

Hearing:                   13 February 2014

Appearances:           Appellant (In Person)

K South for Respondent

Judgment:                18 February 2014

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

Introduction

[1]      Mr Bradley was convicted under s 52(1)(c) of failing to comply with a lawful requirement  given  under  s  113(2)(e)  of  the  Land  Transport  Act  1998  (LTA) forbidding him from driving without a licence.   He was fined $500 together with Court costs  of $132.89.   He was  also  disqualified  from  holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for three months.

[2]      I  understand  Mr  Bradley  appeals  that  conviction  and  sentence  on  three primary grounds, namely:

(a)       He was at all times in fact competent to drive;

(b)The New Zealand Transport Agency (Agency) wrongly refused to issue a licence to his natural persona;

BRADLEY v POLICE  [2014] NZHC 185  [18 February 2014]

(c)      Section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBOR Act) affirming his right to practise his religious beliefs, including self identification in any particular way, provided a defence to the charges because he was entitled to insist on a licence being issued to his

natural persona.

Issue

[3]      It is not disputed that Mr Bradley was told by a Constable that he may not drive without a licence and was ordered not to drive, and that he subsequently did in fact drive.  I must determine therefore whether Mr Bradley’s asserted competence, and his right to self identify for religious reasons provides a legal defence to the charges for which he was convicted or should result in a lesser sentence.

Argument

[4]      Helpfully, Mr Bradley reduced his core arguments to writing.  In summary I

understand he contends that:

(a)       His (I assume) original driver’s licence number is proof that he is

competent to drive;

(b)His  natural  self  passed  the  competency  test,  but  the Agency  has refused  to  issue  a  licence  to  his  natural  person,  identified  by his religious name ‘Alexander-William’ not ‘ALEXANDER WILLIAM’

– Mr Bradley produced an identity card, witnessed by a Notary Public which he says correctly records his religious name;

(c)      The current photo licence only identifies a fictional legal person who does not exist, not the natural person;

(d)The natural  person is  entitled  under s  15  of the NZBOR Act1   to manifest that person’s religious beliefs (including identification as a natural person where required as part of that religious belief) and s 29 affirms  the  applicability  of  the  NZBOR Act  to  legal  and  natural persons;

(e)      Freedom of movement is also necessary to manifest religious beliefs;

(f)      An unlicensed driver has untested skills, but the holder of an expired licence has only failed to update their identification;

(g)To forbid a competent driver is not a matter of road safety and is contrary to the safety purpose of the LTA.

[5]      Overall,  the  theme  of  Mr  Bradley’s  appeal  is  captured  by the  following

submission:

The fact that I cannot produce a licence is not a neglect of safety, it is the enforcement of my right to practice my beliefs in public without discrimination (New Zealand Bill of rights 1990 15).  The fact that police refuse to accept my documents and refuse to understand the consequence of there (sic) actions only serves to usurp the interests of Justice and undermine their oath of office.

Assessment

Conviction

[6]      The relevant statutory framework is clear.   A person may not drive a motor vehicle without an appropriate driver’s licence.2    Enforcement officers may enforce this  requirement  and  forbid  an  unlicensed  driver  to  drive  a  motor  vehicle.3

Contravention of the requirement to have a licence and/or to follow an instruction

1    Section 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides:

15   Manifestation of religion and belief

Every person has the right to manifest that person's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, or teaching, either individually or in community with others, and either in public or in private.

2      Land Transport Act 1998, s 5.

3      Section 113.

not to drive as an unlicensed driver is an offence under the Land Transport Act for which he or she may be convicted.4

[7]      The District Court Justices of the Peace5 found that Mr Bradley was stopped on 28 March 2012, did not have a driver’s licence and was forbidden to drive.  He was later found driving again on 16 September 2012.  The Court found that he was driving a tractor at dusk, had no headlights on and the forklifts were horizontal and one metre off the road.   These findings of fact are not seriously disputed (though Mr Bradley submitted that they were exaggerated) so the requisite elements of the offending were established.

[8]      Turning then to the alleged defences; Mr Bradley’s competency to drive is an irrelevant consideration for the purposes of the offending, but may be relevant to sentencing if proven (which I will address below).   In short, culpability arises on driving without a licence and then contrary to a requirement of an enforcement officer forbidding driving without a licence.

[9]      Mr   Bradley’s   asserted   right   to   express   his   religion,   including   self identification in terms of his religious beliefs, provides no defence to the current charges for the following reasons:

(a)       Mr Bradley is plainly ‘a person’ for the purposes of s 5 which states:

5        Drivers to be licensed

(1)      A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road-

(a)       Without an appropriate current driver licence; or

(b)      In contravention of the conditions of  the person's driver licence; or

...

(b)The alleged refusal by the Agency to issue a licence to or in his religious name (if true) does not bear on the culpability under the LTA under s 5 or s 113(2) to in fact hold a licence or to comply with the

direction of an enforcement officer not to drive.  Rather, Mr Bradley could have sought the intervention of this Court in the event that he considered the refusal by the Agency to issue him a licence in his religious name was wrong at law and infringed his rights.  But he was in the interim otherwise obliged at law to adhere to the requirements of s 5 and the enforcement procedures.

(c)      The effect of s 5 LTA and the enforcement powers under s 113(2) represent a justified limitation6 (to the extent there is one) on the right under s 15 to manifest one’s religion given the clear policy of the LTA to secure safety of the public.   The regulatory frame could become unworkable if driving were permissible without a licence based on alleged breaches of rights under the NZBOR Act.  As I have said, the proper remedy is to seek to review the process for issuing licences,

rather than to ignore the clear requirements to have a licence and follow the directions of an enforcement officer.7

(d)In all the circumstances, when Mr Bradley elected to drive in advance of obtaining a formal licence, he did so at his own peril.

[10]     For  completeness,  I  express  no  view  or  otherwise  on  the  merits  of  any

claimed breach of Mr Bradley’s right to express his religion.

Sentence

[11]     I agree with Crown counsel that a fine of $500, in a context where the maximum is $10,000 and the appellant has two previous convictions for the same offence, is modest.  I have considered Mr Bradley’s asserted claim to competency, and I have factored in his assertion that the Agency refused to issue a licence to his natural  person.    But  even  taking  these  matters  into  account,  the  end  sentence certainly was not manifestly excessive and does not warrant revisiting by this Court.

[12]     The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch