Brooker v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CRI-2017-418-5

[2017] NZHC 2658

BETWEEN

ALLISTAIR BROOKER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

26 October 2017

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

S Dayal for the Respondent

Judgment:

30 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1]    The appellant, Mr Allistair Brooker, was charged with defacing a building after he used a marker to write “NZ = lies + theft” several times on an external wall and door of the Greymouth Police Station.1 Mr Brooker was apprehended by the police in the act of writing this graffiti and arrested.

The District Court proceeding

[2]    Mr Brooker admitted his actions when he appeared before Judge Saunders in the District Court. However, he maintained his not guilty plea on the basis he did not accept the Court had jurisdiction to determine the charge. Mr Brooker’s position is that the Crown does not have sovereignty over New Zealand and that he is not subject to the laws enacted by the New Zealand Parliament.

1      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 11A.

BROOKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 2658 [30 October 2017]

[3]    Mr Brooker encouraged the District Court to find that previous decisions of New Zealand superior Courts which have addressed similar arguments of the type propounded by Mr Brooker were based upon “errors of facts and law”. However, the Judge found those cases recognised that only Parliament is able to make laws which are binding on all persons within New Zealand, and that the Courts were required to uphold the Acts of Parliament. The Judge found himself bound to follow the decisions of these higher Courts. He rejected Mr Brooker’s submission that the Court did not have jurisdiction and found the charge proved. Mr Brooker was convicted and fined.

Mr Brooker’s appeal

[4]    On his appeal, Mr Brooker maintained his argument that the Court has no lawful authority. He relied upon the written submissions he prepared for his argument before the District Court which he filed in support of his appeal, together with supplementary oral submissions made before me. Essentially, Mr Brooker’s submission is that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Crown and, as a result, the entire system of Government in New Zealand is illegitimate. He maintains colonial Britain invaded New Zealand and that what followed was a “belligerent military occupation” which cannot confer de jure sovereignty.

[5]    When Mr Brooker appeared before me he was at some pains to point out that he appeared as a “prisoner of war” and that he did not recognise the authority of this Court. Mr Brooker’s self-described status is likely linked to the thesis of his submissions. However, that does not disguise the somewhat contradictory position he takes in bringing an appeal against his conviction to this Court. Conceivably this Court could only have authority to consider and potentially uphold Mr Brooker’s appeal if the system of appointment of its Judges was valid and the statute pursuant to…