France v Police - [2015] NZHC 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2015-404-117 [2015] NZHC 2011

BETWEEN
MALCOLM DANIEL FRANCE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 24 August 2015

Appearances:

Appellant in person
E Rutherford for Respondent

Judgment:

24 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Appellant in Person

FRANCE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 2011 [24 August 2015]

[1] This is an appeal against convictions for failing to ensure a tail-light was working, driving without a drivers’ licence and wearing a damaged helmet while operating a moped.

[2] The appellant was convicted by two Justices on the Peace (JPs) on 3 October

2013 in the Waitekere District Court. The appellant applied for a rehearing on 31

October 2013. This does not appear to have been heard until 12 February 2015, when the application was declined by Judge Tremewan. The appellant then filed a notice of general appeal in the High Court on 19 March 2015.

[3] In this Court the appellant argued that the police did not have jurisdiction to lay the charges, and in determining the charges the JPs acted outside of their jurisdiction, “stepped out of their bond and ignored their oath” and are criminally liable. The appellant, who refuses to answer to the name Malcolm France, and in the District Court stated that he was Malcolm Freeman, the Attorney in Fact of Malcolm France, was ordered to be removed from the Court by the JPs.

[4] The respondent submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the appeal should have been made to the District Court.

[5] For the reasons given below, I agreed with the respondent that this Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal. I raised this matter with the appellant and referred him to a decision of the Court of Appeal France v R,1 where a similar appeal to this Court was found to lack jurisdiction. He had no answer to this query. I dismissed the appeal. My reasons for doing so now follow.

District Court Hearing

[6] In the District Court hearing before two JPs, the Court thanked Mr France for coming. He replied “I am not Mr France. I am Malcolm Freeman.” This lead to a protracted discussion while the JPs tried to figure out who was at Court. When he stated that he was the Attorney in Fact for Mr France, the JPs said that if he did not
have proof of this, they would have to deal with the matter by way of formal proof.

1 France v R [2015] NZCA 282.

They then asked the appellant to leave the courtroom, dealing with the matter by way of formal proof and making orders that the appellant paid fines totalling $600 and court costs of $30.

[7] On 12 February 2015 Judge Tremewan refused the application for a rehearing noting that there were “no grounds upon which court sees a rehearing is warranted. Decisions stand and are enforceable.” There is no…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read France v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 2011
Decision Date: 24 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Malcolm Daniel France, appealed against convictions for failing to ensure a tail-light was working, driving without a driver's licence, and wearing a damaged helmet while operating a moped. The convictions were handed down by two Justices of the Peace in the Waitekere District Court. The appellant was dissatisfied with the outcome and applied for a rehearing, which was declined by Judge Tremewan. The appellant then filed a notice of general appeal in the High Court. The main legal issues in this case were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and whether the appellant's arguments had any merit.

The Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. According to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, the first appeal court for an appeal against a decision of a Justice of the Peace is a District Court presided over by a District Court Judge. The Court also noted that the appeal was out of time as the application for a rehearing suspended the period of time for filing the appeal until the application was determined. The appellant's arguments were considered to be nonsensical and without merit. The Court dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant's arguments were found to be without merit, and the convictions handed down by the District Court were upheld.

Orders