France v Police - [2015] NZHC 171

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2014-404-290 [2015] NZHC 171

MALCOLM DANIEL FRANCE

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Hearing: 10 February 2015

Appearances:

Appellant in person
L M Mills for the Respondent

Judgment:

13 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 February 2015 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.

FRANCE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 171 [13 February 2015]

Summary

[1] The appellant, Malcolm Daniel France, appeals against conviction and sentence for one charge of common assault under s 9 of the Summary Offences Act
1981.

[2] The grounds for appeal are not clear. The essence of the appellant’s arguments appears to be that the court has no jurisdiction over the appellant, that the Judge was biased and that the appellant’s evidence was ignored.

Facts

[3] On 28 July 2014, the appellant was convicted of common assault in the

District Court.1

[4] The Judge found that the appellant had spun around and struck the victim while being peacefully led out of a courtroom by Mr MacKenzie and another court security officer. The appellant was convicted on the basis of CCTV footage and testimony from both security officers and a police constable identifying the appellant. The Judge held that the charge was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[5] The Judge sentenced Mr France to 80 hours community work. The appellant’s history of resisting, obstructing, hindering and assaulting police was noted, as were a range of other convictions and fines. The sentence was imposed to hold Mr France accountable for his behaviour and to send a message about proper conduct in courtrooms.

Appellant’s Submissions

[6] The appellant has not filed submissions because he claims that the court has no jurisdiction over him.

1 New Zealand Police v France DC Auckland CRI-2013-004-013365, 28 July 2014.

[7] The grounds of appeal are: (using the grammar and punctuation from the appeal notice)

(a) the Judge has forsaken his oath and stepped off his bench [It is possible that the final word is ‘bias’ rather than ‘bench’. However, the respondent submits that the word is ‘bench’];

(b)the Judge abducted Attorney in Fact, outside the scope of his authority;

(c) the Judge ignored Affiants affidavit and failed to acknowledge Affiants jurisdiction and therefore failed in his interpretation of the law;

(d) the Judge disallowed evidence in court;

(e) the Judge thereby prematurely bringing matter to a guilty plea; and

(f) both Mr France and Mr France’s Attorney in Fact/Affiant were denied

their fair justice and remedy.

[8] The appellant filed several affidavits during the course of both the District Court and these proceedings. These affidavits are difficult to comprehend. The appellant appears to be claiming that the courts, New Zealand Government and Crown have no jurisdiction over him because he is a “private, sentient, breathing living man…subject only to the Supreme Creator and His Laws”. Similarly, the appellant claims that Mr Malcolm Daniel France, the…

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 171
Decision Date: 13 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Malcolm Daniel France appealed his conviction and sentence for common assault, as per section 9 of the Summary Offences Act 1981. The appellant argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him, that the judge was biased, and that his evidence was ignored. He claimed that the New Zealand courts, government, and Crown had no jurisdiction over him, and he was a "private, sentient, breathing living man…subject only to the Supreme Creator and His Laws." The District Court had previously convicted the appellant, who had struck a security officer while being led out of the courtroom. The judge found the appellant guilty based on CCTV footage and testimony from security officers and a police constable.

The court addressed the jurisdiction, bias, and miscarriage of justice arguments. The court found that the New Zealand courts have jurisdiction over individuals within the country. The court held that there were no facts suggesting that the judge was biased and that the appellant's arguments were patiently heard by the judge. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice as the evidence of the assault was clear. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed as there was no separate ground for an appeal against sentence put forward by the appellant. The sentence of 80 hours' community work was not considered manifestly excessive, especially given the appellant's previous convictions for assault. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed. This decision reinforces the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts over individuals within the country and the importance of properly assessing evidence in criminal trials.

Orders