Easton v Police

[2025] NZHC 2135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2025-485-000475

[2025] NZHC 2135

High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11, Review of Registrar’s decision

BETWEEN

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	1 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Application for review of registrar’s decision)

[1]                 Benjamin Easton applies, under r 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016, for review of the decision of the Registrar to decline to accept a proceeding for filing.

[2]                 On 28 July 2025, Mr Easton, who is self-represented, filed an originating application. It purports to be (so far as can be discerned) an originating application for directions as to the conduct of proceedings under r 7.43A, an application for an interlocutory injunction, an application for an oral evidence order under s 90 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and an application for non-party disclosure under s 24 of the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.

[3]                 The document is very difficult to follow but it appears to relate to criminal charges of wilful trespass that Mr Easton faces in the Wellington District Court. It

EASTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 2135 [1 August 2025]

appears that, at a hearing on 6 June 2025, these charges were set down for a one-day judge-alone trial on 6 August 2025 contrary to Mr Easton’s wishes. Mr Easton appears to seek an adjournment of the District Court trial until his originating application is determined.

[4]The Registrar delivered the following decision by email on 28 July:

Your application cannot be accepted for filing. The enactments you mention are not covered by r19.2 of the High Court Rules 2016 and therefore cannot be filed as an originating application as of right.

The proceeding also mentions criminal matters and references the Criminal Procedure Act. You cannot file both civil and criminal matters in the same proceeding as they are different jurisdictions.

I strongly encourage you to seek legal guidance regarding your options.

[5]                 So far as can be discerned, the substance of Mr Easton’s application is that a number of matters make his criminal prosecution for trespass unlawful. He seeks pre- trial oral evidence orders under the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of Members of Parliament David Seymour, Shane Jones and Tama Potaka. Although the intituling of the application mentions the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, there is nothing in the application to suggest that Mr Easton is currently in custody or any other form of detention, or that any detention might be unrelated to his criminal charges. If he is currently remanded in custody on his criminal charges (which appears unlikely), the appropriate process is to make an application for bail in the District Court, and if bail is refused, to appeal that refusal to this Court, in accordance with the Bail Act 2000.

[6]                 I consider the documents were appropriately rejected for filing. The Registrar was right to note that the proceedings inappropriately attempt to have civil and criminal matters heard together and any civil claim that may exist could not be commenced by way of originating application without the Court’s permission under  r 19.5.

[7]                 Moreover, the application is wholly deficient in other respects. It lacks jurisdiction in that it seeks oral evidence orders and non-party discovery when such orders cannot be made by this Court for a criminal proceeding currently before the District Court. It is also wholly deficient in identifying a valid civil cause of action.

Mr Easton’s remedies for any deficiencies in the steps taken in the District Court criminal prosecution are to be found in the Criminal Procedure Act, or in limited circumstances, judicial review proceedings that are not a collateral attack on the criminal process.1 There is nothing in Mr Easton’s application that suggests it would be appropriate for this Court to embark on review of the District Court decision to set down his criminal proceedings for a one-day trial.

[8]                 I therefore  conclude  that  the  Registrar’s  was  right  to  reject  for  filing  Mr Easton’s originating application.

La Hood J

1      South Taranaki Fishing Charters Ltd v District Court at Whanganui [2025] NZHC 1701 at [12].