G v Police HC Auckland CRI-2005-404-269

[2005] NZHC 363

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2005-404-269

G

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Counsel:         Appellant in person

A Longdill for Crown

Judgment:      9 December 2005

ORAL JUDGMENT OF BARAGWANATH J

Solicitor:

Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:

Mr S M G  , Bay of Islands

G  V POLICE HC AK CRI-2005-404-269  9 December 2005

[1]      Mr G   is of Tainui and appeals against the decision of Justices of the Peace who  convicted  him  on  charges  that  on  14  March  2005  at  Dairy Flat  he operated a private vehicle on a road when the vehicle was not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection and that he used a motor vehicle on the road when the vehicle had not been duly registered.

[2]      At the hearing on 19 July 2005 where Mr G   represented himself, as he does today, a police constable gave evidence of travelling south on the motorway between Silverdale and the Oteha Valley turnoff behind a Toyota van which had no rear registration plate.  He activated his red and blue flashing lights and stopped the vehicle at the side of the motorway.  The driver identified himself as Mr G  . The officer inspected the vehicle and found it had no warrant of fitness displayed and no vehicle registration.   He asked Mr G   to explain their absence to which Mr G    replied  “I  do  not  need  to  [display  such  warrant  and  registration].” The officer issued Mr G   with an infringement notice for driving without a warrant of fitness and for failing to register the vehicle.

[3]      Mr G  ’s cross-examination of the constable focused on the presence on the front window of the vehicle of a sovereignty sticker and a smaller flag inside the rear window.  The officer confirmed that Mr G   had behaved with courtesy as he has done today.

[4]      In his evidence before the Court Mr G   challenged the application to him  of  the  provisions  of  the  respective  statutes  under  which  the  charges  were brought: ss 5(1A) and 5(2) of the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986 and s 34(1)(b) Land Transport Act 1998.

[5]      The Justices rejected Mr G  ’s submission that he had committed no offence because this country has no written constitution and the House of Representatives has no  legal  right  to  enact  legislation.    They found  proved  the charges of driving on a road a vehicle that had not been duly registered, and displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection.  They ordered Mr G   to pay

$200 on each charge.  Court costs of $30 were also ordered.

[6]      In  his  submissions  today  Mr G    relied  upon  a  series  of  provisions including the Treaty of Waitangi and court decisions including the judgment of the Privy Council in Nireaha Tamaki v Baker (1902) 22 NZLR 97 (SC); [1901] AC 561 (PC). He submitted in short that the conduct of him and of other people was not regulated by Parliament and that the police had no authority to bring him before the Court.

[7]      Mr G   is clearly a man of intelligence as well as of courtesy.  I have no doubt that he understands perfectly the responsibility of this Court to apply the laws made by Parliament, enforced by the police under our constitution and determined and applied by the judiciary.

[8]      With the privilege of having represented Tainui during the eight years from

1987,  I understand  full  well  the  distress  felt  by members  of  that  tribe  at  their treatment by the colonial government including notably the Raupatu and the breach of the Second Article of the Treaty of Waitangi which that entailed.  It is necessary however for this generation while learning from the past, to live for the present and to look to the future.   The purpose of the registration and warranting of motor vehicles  is  to  ensure  safety  on  the  road  for  all  New Zealanders,  Maori  and non-Maori.  The rights and duties of citizenship are expressed in the Third Article as translated   by   Sir Hugh   Kawharu   from   the   Maori   version   of   the   Treaty (see New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 663). That requires this Court to enforce the duty of citizenship of complying with the transport legislation.

[9]      It follows that the appeal must be dismissed.

[10]     Ms  Longdill has been impressed as  I have by the  courteous  conduct  by

Mr G   of his appeal and does not apply for costs.

W D Baragwanath J