Ferri v Police

[2018] NZCA 181

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA583/2017
 [2018] NZCA 181

BETWEEN	CHRIS MATTHEW FERRI AND KARLA WHITE Applicants
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	French, Ellis and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	Applicants in person K Peirse-O’Byrne for Respondent
Judgment:  (On the papers)	5 June 2018 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time is granted.

BThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Introduction

1. Mr Ferri and Ms White were found guilty of disorderly behaviour[1] following a five-day judge-alone trial before Judge Roberts in the District Court at Kaikohe on 1 March 2017.[2]  Mr Ferri was found guilty of a further charge of wilful damage.  Mr Ferri was sentenced to 80 hours’ community work and ordered to pay reparation of $522.41.  Fines of $1,322 were remitted as part of the sentencing process.  Ms White was sentenced to 40 hours’ community work.[3]

   [1]Summary Offences Act 1981, s 3. 

   [2]New Zealand Police v Ferri [2017] NZDC 4550.

   [3]New Zealand Police v Ferri [2017] NZDC 4335.

2. In the High Court, Hinton J dismissed an appeal against conviction, but allowed an appeal against sentence.  Mr Ferri’s sentence of community work was reduced to 40 hours’ community work, while Ms White’s sentence of community work was replaced with a fine of $250.[4]

   [4]White v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 1983.

3. Mr Ferri and Ms White now seek leave to bring a second appeal against conviction.  The application was filed out of time.  We grant the necessary extension as the delay was not long and the Crown did not indicate it opposed the extension. 

Test to be applied

1. To grant leave, we must be satisfied that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, such as an issue of “general principle or of general importance in the administration of the criminal law by the Courts”,[5] or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.[6]

Factual background

[5]Keenan v R [2005] NZSC 63 at [5]; cited in McAllister v R [2014] NZCA 175, [2014] 2 NZLR 764 at [36].

[6]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237(3) and 253(3).

1. Mr Ferri and Ms White were involved in a prolonged incident outside the Paihia Police Station in the very early hours of Christmas Day 2015, during the course of which they shouted at the police officers inside the building and other people standing nearby.  One of the neighbours threatened violence against them because of the noise they were making.  Mr Ferri also kicked the front door to the police station, causing the glass panel to break.

2. The catalyst was apparently the arrest earlier that evening of the boyfriend of Ms White’s daughter.

Discussion

1. Mr Ferri and Ms White seek leave to bring a second appeal on the ground that the Courts of New Zealand have no jurisdiction:

   The New Zealand Governments and its judicial system are enforcing its sovereignty through physical revolution transferred at the point of a gun, whereby the sovereignty of the people of New Zealand has been usurped by Parliament and the Courts?

   CEASE AND DESIST!

   The conviction and sentence should be quashed, with an apology including costs of $300,000 @ $100,000 per year, from the period of 25 December 2015 till conclusion of this matter 2018.

2. The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is undoubtedly of general or public importance, but as noted by Hinton J,[7] it is well settled that arguments challenging the general law-making authority of the New Zealand Parliament cannot succeed: a litigant is not entitled to put themselves outside of the law of New Zealand.[8]

   [7]White v New Zealand Police, above n 4, at [16].

   [8]Mitchell v R CA68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14]; and Morunga v New Zealand Police [2016] NZCA 599 at [7]–[8].

3. The jurisdictional issue was in fact canvassed in a separate appeal against a pre-trial ruling of Judge Davis that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.  In the High Court, Gilbert J dismissed the appeal protesting the jurisdiction of the Court, again for the reason that the law-making authority of the New Zealand Parliament is unquestionable.[9]

   [9]White v New Zealand Police [2016] NZHC 1617 at [3]; citing Mitchell v R, above n 8, at [14].

4. The claim of lack of jurisdiction made by Mr Ferri and Ms White is without merit.

Result

1. The application for an extension of time is granted.

2. There is no matter of general or public importance that would justify a second appeal.  There is also no indication of a miscarriage of justice.

3. The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent