Brown v Wellington Court of Appeal

[2017] NZHC 2430

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV 2017-485-752 [2017] NZHC 2430

BETWEEN

MATTHEW RICHARD BROWN

Applicant

AND

WELLINGTON COURT OF APPEAL AND MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Respondents

On the Papers
Judgment:	4 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]      On 12 September 2017 Matthew Richard Brown (the applicant) filed three documents in the High  Court at Wellington.   The first  was  called  a “notice of appeal”, the second was called a “notice of judicial review” and the third was an affidavit of Matthew Richard Brown.

[2]      No filing  fee was  paid  when  the  documents  were  filed but  there  was  a partially completed application for waiver of fees lodged at the same time.

[3]      The  documents  filed  by  the  applicant  were  rambling  and,  at  times, incoherent.  The applicant made allegations of unethical and unlawful behaviour on the part of four District Court Judges, five High Court Judges, four Court of Appeal Judges and three Supreme Court Judges.  He described himself as being “the victim of no less than five intentional miscarriages of justice” at the hands of the Judges he

mentioned.

BROWN v WELLINGTON COURT OF APPEAL AND MINISTRY OF JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 2430 [4 October 2017]

[4]      The subject matter covered by the various documents relates to four separate criminal proceedings the applicant has been convicted in: a 2006 conviction for injuring with intent to injure; a 2008 conviction for male assaults female; and two trespass convictions, one relating to a supermarket in Dunedin and the other to trespassing at Parliament in Wellington.

[5]      An  appeal  against  the  conviction  for  injuring  with  intent  to  injure  was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in June 2008.1  An appeal against the conviction of male assaults female was dismissed by French J in the High Court on 25 November

2008.2

[6]      An appeal against the Dunedin trespass conviction was dismissed by Mander J in the High Court at Dunedin on 1 December 2016;3 an appeal against the Wellington trespass conviction was dismissed by Clark J on 5 October 2016;4 a joint appeal against both the Dunedin and Wellington convictions was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 23 March 2017;5 and an application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in both the Dunedin and Wellington trespass convictions was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18 August 2017.6

[7]      The dismissal by the Supreme Court of Mr Brown’s application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision appears to have been the catalyst for Mr Brown filing the various documents referred to in [1] above on 12 September 2017.

Abusive proceedings

[8]      On 1 September 2017, by r 8 of the High Court Rules 2016 Amendment Rules (No 2) 2017 a new provision was inserted into the High Court Rules 2016. Rule 5.35A now provides that if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the

Court, the Registrar may refer it to a Judge for consideration under r 5.35B.

1      Brown v R [2008] NZCA 156.

2      B v Police HC Dunedin CRI 2008-412-000041, 25 November 2008.

3      Brown v Police [2016] NZHC 2884.

4      Brown v Police [2016] NZHC 2359.

5      Brown v Police [2017] NZCA 71.

6      Brown v Police [2017] NZSC 121.

[9]      Rule 5.35B provides that the Judge may make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of including that the proceeding be struck out or stayed.

Analysis

[10]     Having reviewed the material filed by the applicant it appears that he is attempting to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal that he unsuccessfully sought the leave of the Supreme Court to challenge and to judicially review the various decisions where fines were imposed.   There is some overlap between the subject matter of the two proceedings.

[11]     The relief sought in the “Notice of Appeal” is:

That Mr Brown is granted a fair and public hearing; all convictions are quashed and Mr Brown is duly compensated.

[12]     In relation to the “Notice of Judicial Review” the relief sought repeats the above and adds in relation to his outstanding fines:

1.Mr Brown would like to be furnished with a breakdown of his fines, which fine relates to which trespass order, and the Court costs that relate to each fine.

2.        He would like to be furnished with the due date(s) for his fines.

3.        He seeks the removal of the unlawful penalty fees.

4.Mr Brown also feels he is entitled to a written apology given the substandard and unlawful deportment (sic) to which he is continually subjected.

[13]     There is no right of appeal or judicial review in relation to a decision of the

Court of Appeal where the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal.

[14]     Neither do the documents filed by the applicant disclose any basis upon which the Court could judicially review any of the prior criminal decisions or the fines imposed by the various courts.  The relief sought by Mr Brown in his judicial review application is not relief of a nature that the Courts are able to grant judicial review proceedings.

[15]     I note for completeness that Mr Brown initially filed a “Notice of Judicial

Review” against the fines decisions of the “Wellington Collections Department” on

4 September 2017.  The grounds in this document have been entirely replicated in his claim against the Ministry of Justice in his notice received on 12 September

2017.  Mr Brown was correct to refile his notice listing the Ministry of Justice as respondent, as the “Wellington Collections Department” does not appear to be a legal entity separately capable of judicial review.

[16]     If the applicant is unsure about how much he owes by way of outstanding fines, the proper course is not for him to purport to commence judicial review proceedings but to make inquiries of the court where the fines were imposed.

[17]     I am satisfied that the purported filing of these proceedings by the applicant is an abuse of the process of the Court and that this is an appropriate case for r 5.35A to be invoked.

[18]     Accordingly, pursuant to r 5.35B I strike these proceedings out.

[19]     As required by r 5.35B(3), as I have made an order under Rule 5.35B(2)(a) without having given the applicant an opportunity to be heard I notify the applicant of his right to appeal against this decision.  Any appeal must be filed with the Court of Appeal Registry within 20 working days of this decision and must comply with the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. This will include paying security for costs.

[20]     Rule 5.35B(4) provides that, if practicable, a copy of the Court’s decision to strike out a proceeding must be served on the person named as a party or if more than one person is named those persons named as parties.

[21]     The  applicant  has  named  as  the  respondents  the  “Wellington  Court  of Appeal” and “Ministry of Justice”.  I direct pursuant to r 5.35B(4) that a copy of the decision be served on the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and on the Ministry of Justice.

Churchman J