Fleming v Police HC Hamilton CRI 2010-419-94
[2011] NZHC 2063
•24 August 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
CRI 2010-419-94
BETWEEN PAUL DAMIAN FLEMING Appellant
ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 24 August 2011
Counsel: No appearance by, or on behalf of Appellant
M N Sturm for Respondent
Judgment: 24 August 2011
(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Copy to:Appellant in person
FLEMING V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI 2010-419-94 24 August 2011
[1] On 8 November 2010, Mr Fleming appeared before Judge Riddell in the District Court at Morrinsville charged with driving at a speed exceeding 70km/h, being the limit in the area in which he was driving. The alleged offending occurred on 3 September 2009. Mr Fleming also faced charges that his vehicle was unregistered and without a current warrant of fitness.
[2] Judge Riddell chronicled the events that occurred on 8 November 2010 when the charges were called before her. Mr Fleming had presented “disclosure” which he asserted proved that the charges were “fraudulent”. In describing the documents, Judge Riddell said:
[12] Mr Fleming has provided the Court with a number of documents and
I am going to detail these as follows:
(a) The first page of the documents tendered to the Court asks the Court to consider the case involving a Mr Harold Ruff which alleges fraud on the part of the New Zealand Police. On that basis, it is claimed that Mr Fleming’s appearance will not be necessary in Court and that the “information is to be withdrawn”.
(b) The other documents contain a number of pages in relation to charges against Mr Ruff. Those charges relate to, first of all, failing to wear a cycle helmet, an offence occurring on
16 February 2005. It is apparent from the documents that
Mr Ruff elected to represent himself and has made a number of submissions in relation to the charge.
(c) There are further documents, all rather oblique in my view, filed presumably by Mr Ruff which challenges the jurisdiction of the Court, which refers to the Acts of parliament of the UK and the King James’ version of the Bible.
(d) The next pages then refer to the captioned summary of the charge against Mr Fleming noting that the infringement fee for excess speed is $230.
(e) The next document requests a Court hearing.
(f) There follows thereafter a number of documents, again relating to Mr Harold Ruff, claiming to be in chronological order of documents sent to various people including Opotiki Police, New Zealand Police, Wellington, the Minister of Justice, the Governor General and so on. They relate to a charge against Mr Ruff of driving without a current driver’s licence.
(g) There is then a handwritten letter, presumably by Mr Ruff, relating to the charge. A response from the police and further correspondence in a rather oblique manner by Mr Ruff with responses from the bodies already referred to.
(h) There is also reference to Mr Ruff having outstanding fines totalling $1060. In response, Mr Ruff has claimed that his rights have been breached.
(i) Further correspondence follows to various parties including the Governor General, the Department of Courts and the Minister of Justice.
(j) A further letter claiming to be a final “constructive notice” claims that the Court has no jurisdiction to impose a fine over the said Mr Ruff.
(k) Copies of further documents dating back to 2003 follow.
(l) There follows a document of the remaining number of pages which is described as a statement of evidence in reply to Gilling Report. It is difficult to see how this document might be relevant to the charges that Mr Fleming faces. Mr Fleming, for his part when offered the opportunity to speak in his defence, was reluctant to elaborate on this document so I fail to see its relevance again to this matter today.
(m) There then follows photocopies of various newspaper articles dating back to 2001, the last one is undated and again appears to have no relevance to the charges before the Court.
[3] After hearing evidence, Judge Riddell expressed the view that the charges had been proved. She recorded that Mr Fleming, when given the opportunity to speak, said: “I accept the claims and opinion of the Court” and “And now I remain mute”.
[4] Mr Fleming was found guilty on each charge. A fine of $400 plus Court costs was ordered on the speeding charge, together with a fine of $500 in respect of the two remaining charges.
[5] Mr Fleming appeals against his conviction and the sentence imposed. His appeal was filed on 6 December 2010. Due to a systemic problem, the appeal was not drawn to the attention of the Registrar of this Court until recently. That is the reason for the delay in having the appeal heard.
[6] Mr Fleming’s grounds for appeal are:
Prosecution Failed to Disclose original charging Documentation [Summons] with who was charging in the first place. So therefore was unable to defend case. Therefore no Subject Matter or Jurisdiction.
[7] Mr Fleming was advised of the hearing scheduled for today, in a communication forwarded to the address shown in his notice of appeal on 8 August
2011. When the appeal was called before me, there was no appearance by him, or on his behalf.
[8] Mr Sturm, for the Police, seeks dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution.
[9] Mr Fleming has failed to prosecute his appeal. However, given the systemic problem I have also considered any merit that may arise in the appeal. I find there is none. The charges were sufficiently clear to identify both the acts that were alleged to have infringed relevant legal provisions and to identify the provisions so that Mr Fleming or his counsel could consider them. Nothing more was required. Mr Fleming was able to defend the case. There is no basis on which Judge Riddell’s decisions can be impugned.
[10] The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed, for want of prosecution.
P R Heath J
0
0
0