Dickie v Police - [2012] NZHC 568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2011-488-58 [2012] NZHC 568

ADRIAN CHARLES DICKIE
Appellant
v

THE POLICE
Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: Appellant in person
D B Stevens for Crown

Judgment: 30 March 2012

JUDGMENT NO.2 of ALLAN J

Solicitors/party:
A Dickie, Ngunguru Ford Rd, RD3, Whangarei
Crown Solicitor Whangarei

DICKIE V THE POLICE HC WHA CRI 2011-488-58 [30 March 2012]

[1] Mr Dickie appeals against a judgment given by me on 22 February 2012, in which I refused his appeal against conviction on charges of using a motor vehicle with an unauthorised registration plate, using an unlicensed motor vehicle, and failing to produce a driver’s licence for inspection without delay.

[2] Applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal are governed by s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Under s 144(3) leave may be granted only if this Court considers that there is a question of law involved in the proposed appeal which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision.[1]

[1] See generally the discussion in R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211.

[3] Mr Dickie’s first notice of application for leave to appeal was partly handwritten and partly typewritten. He had plainly used a template or precedent document. The form contained space under the heading “QUESTION OF LAW” for the applicant to set out the question of law in respect of which leave was sought. Mr Dickie had left that space blank.

[4] Further down the document, under the heading “UPON THE GROUNDS”, Mr Dickie had said that “The legislation was (sic) used against me is fraudulent as is the Magistrate’s Court that processed it”.

[5] I ruled that the form did not comply with the requirements of s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act, and directed that Mr Dickie file an amended notice of application within a stipulated time. He did so. The amended application contains only one material variation from the first version. Under the heading “Question of Law” there now appears the phrase “Breach of Contract”.

[6] On appeal before me, Mr Dickie had not dealt at all with the substance of the offences with which he was charged. Rather, he had mounted a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament, and incidentally to the jurisdiction of this Court.

[7] In essence his argument was that:

(a) Queen Elizabeth II was “fraudulently crowned” because the stone on which she was crowned had been replaced when the original stone was stolen in 1950;

(b) Judges appointed with her authority have no jurisdiction;

(c) In any event, the Monarch has no ability to give the Royal Assent to any laws other than those laid down by God and found in the Bible;

(d)The legislation under which the appellant was charged and convicted was not authorised by God and is therefore legislation which is ultra vires fraudulent, null and void.

[8] I rejected that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dickie v Police

Details

AGLC: Dickie v Police [2012] NZHC 568
Case: [2012] NZHC 568
Decision Date: 30 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Adrian Charles Dickie appealed against a conviction by the Whangarei District Court on charges of using a motor vehicle with an unauthorised registration plate, using an unlicensed motor vehicle, and failing to produce a driver’s licence for inspection without delay. The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the requirements of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The central legal issue was whether the appeal raised a question of law of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Court of Appeal. The court considered Dickie's arguments challenging the sovereignty of Parliament and the authority of the court itself, which were based on his interpretation of certain Biblical texts. These arguments were dismissed as they had no prospect of success in New Zealand courts, as established in previous cases such as R v Mitchell.

The court held that Dickie's arguments did not meet the statutory requirements for leave to appeal because they did not identify a question of law. Instead, they challenged the very foundation of the New Zealand legal system, which the court deemed to be outside the scope of permissible legal arguments. The court cited previous jurisprudence to reinforce that challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament are not valid in New Zealand courts. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court did not need to hear from counsel for the respondent, as the application was deemed to be without merit on the papers.

Orders