C v Police HC Wellington CIV 2005-485-2143

[2008] NZHC 2154

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2005-485-2143

BETWEEN  C

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent

ANDTHE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE Second Respondent

CRI 2007-485-135

AND BETWEEN            C

Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         5 February 2008

Counsel:         J H C   (In person)

A M Powell for defendants in CIV 2005-485-2143
M Anderson for Respondent in CRI 2007-485-135

Judgment:      5 February 2008 at Oral

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

[1]      There are two proceedings before the Court which are the subject of this judgment.   The first is an appeal by Mr C   against his conviction on an infringement offence in the District Court at Lower Hutt.  The second proceeding is

an application for review in relation to another proceeding or intended proceeding in

C V NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND ANOR OJ JUDGMENT HC WN CIV 2005-485-2143  5 February

2008

relation to a summary offence of a similar nature.  The essential point which is raised in both sets of proceedings is the same and it is convenient to deal with the matters together.

[2]      It is first necessary to record certain rulings which I made in the course of the hearing relating to some interlocutory applications which have been made in the judicial review proceedings.   The first was that the hearing time allocated for this application be extended to one day.  In fact this matter was set down with a number of other matters also involving Mr C   which were set down for one day but which, by reasons of unforeseen events, had to be completed within half a day.   I refused the application on the basis that having perused the papers I was satisfied that the time which had been allocated and which was now available was ample in which to deal with the issue.

[3]      The  second  application  was  that  two  Judges  be  appointed  due  to  the complexity of the constitutional issues involved.  I refused that application, because it was clear to me that the case did not involve complex constitutional issues as Mr C   asserts.  The alternative sought was that the application be transferred (and the appeal also be transferred) to the Court of Appeal.  I formed the clear view that the matter was not one which should be so transferred.   Accordingly all applications were dismissed.

[4]      Mr  C    also  raised  an  objection  to  my  dealing  with  the  matter.    He submitted that I had demonstrated a bias in the matter:  both, I think, if I understood his submissions correctly, in relation to the other matters which I had dealt with in which Mr C   was involved, and in relation to the views which I had expressed before  hearing  his  argument  on  this  particular  issue.    The  matter  having  been allocated for hearing before me, and being conscious of the demands on the Court’s time, I formed the clear view that I should hear the matter, despite Mr C  ’s objection, I having formed the view that the allegation of bias was not able to be substantiated.

[5]      The essence of Mr C  ’s point in both sets of proceedings relates to the form and style in which his name was recorded on the initiating documents in the

prosecutions which are in issue.   It had been recorded in those documents in full capital letters.   Mr C  ’s contention is that the correct form and style for the recording of his name is in lower case letters, but with an initial capital on each of his names.  He claims that the notices were not lawfully issued because his surname was spelt in full capitals:   in breach, Mr C   alleges, of his ancient freely held custom of spelling his name in the ordinary style which is with an initial capital and thereafter lower case letters.  He submits that that is contrary to Magna Carta 1297

Chapter 29 of his free custom of spelling his name in the ordinary style.

[6]      The essential issue is whether there is an ancient freely held custom under which names are to be spelt with an initial capital and thereafter in lower case letters. Mr C   made it clear in the course of argument that he was not arguing for a particular custom personal to him, but that the ordinary custom in relation to the spelling of names generally was that they should be spelt with initial capitals and thereafter in lower case letters.

[7]      Mr C   does not dispute that he was the person referred to in the summons issued in each case.  Nor does he dispute the facts alleged by the prosecution in each of those cases.   He submits however that the law requires certain standards to be observed and he submits that they have not been observed by the prosecuting authorities in these cases.

[8]      The essential question, on which I did not find it necessary to hear from Counsel for the respondents in each case, is whether there is a freely held custom, which has legal significance and is one which the law should protect, of spelling names in the way in which Mr C   contends is appropriate and that spelling a name with full capitals is a breach of that custom.

[9]      The way in which words are represented, including names, is a matter of style.  There are certain grammatical rules, or perhaps more correctly referred to as conventions rather than rules, as to the way in which words are generally represented by letters, and those conventions extend to names.  Although there is no evidence before the Court in any formal sense of what the ordinary conventions are, one can readily accept Mr C  ’s submission that the convention of spelling names with an

initial capital and thereafter in lower case letters in the ordinary way will generally be appropriate.  There is however, in my view, no rule having legal significance to that effect.  There may be good reasons why names will be spelt in capital letters.  It is a matter of convention and does not carry legal significance.  The conventions are of grammatical not legal significance.

[10]     There is no rule of law requiring the adoption of one form of lettering over another.  The choice as to how the language is written is ordinarily a choice to be made by the writer, and a considerable degree of discretion is given by the grammatical conventions to those who wish to adopt different formats.  The law does not impose one format as opposed to another, in general terms.   There is no requirement that in completing documents in relation to a prosecution one form rather than another of representation of a name is required.

[11]     The consequence of that is that there is no substance in the points which are raised by Mr C  .  The proposition which underlies his submission, namely that his rights as established by Magna Carta have been breached, is not established.  No ancient freely held custom such as that for which he contends has been established in either of these cases.

[12]     For  these  reasons  the  appeal  in  CRI  2007-485-135  is  dismissed.  The application for review in CIV 2005-485-2143 is dismissed.

[13]     As to costs, there will be an order for costs in the appeal.  There will be costs in favour of the respondent on the appeal in accordance with the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1987 of an amount to be minuted by me subsequently.  On the application for review there will be costs on a 2B basis in respect of the preparation of the statement of defence, but Mr Powell properly accepts that there is a degree of duplication in the matter and does not seek costs in respect of today’s hearing.

[14]     Mr C   has requested that I deal specifically with a submission which I had not felt it necessary to address in giving judgment but at his request I do so.   His submission is that the Royal Titles Act 1974 provides that the royal style and titles of Her Majesty shall be Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God Queen of New

Zealand, and he submits that the way in which that is expressed in the Act confirms the custom which he has asserted and which he submits therefore should be followed by Her Majesty’s subjects.   I do not attach such significance to the printing style adopted in the  Royal  Titles  Act.    Parliament  may adopt  certain  conventions  of grammar in recording the legislation which it passes.  The fact that it has adopted one particular convention cannot be taken as an implication that that is the only acceptable convention at all times and in all circumstances which must be followed for the recording of personal names.  As I have said, the convention that surnames are frequently recorded with an initial capital and thereafter in lower case is no more than a convention which may be departed from by authors as they may consider appropriate and does not carry with it a legal significance that one form of representation only is acceptable.   The royal style and title does not, in my view, alter that situation.

[15]     In accordance with my direction that costs on the appeal would be the subject of a further minute, I fix those costs at $226.

“A D MacKenzie J”

Solicitors:         Luke Cunningham & Clere for respondent in CRI 2007-485-135

Crown Law Office for respondents in CIV 2005-485-2143