G v Police HC Auckland CRI 2006-404-29

[2006] NZHC 812

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2006-404-29

CRI 2006-404-200

BETWEEN  G

Appellant

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         13 July 2006

Counsel:        Appellant in Person

AR Longdill for Respondent

Judgment:      13 July 2006

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland for Respondent

G V  POLICE HC AK CRI 2006-404-29  13 July 2006

Introduction

[1]      These two appeals are heard together by consent.   CRI 2006-404-29 is an appeal against convictions in the District Court at North Shore on charges of driving a vehicle on a road without evidence of a vehicle inspection; operating a vehicle with an unauthorised registration plate; and using an unlicensed motor vehicle.  On each of those charges the appellant was fined $200 and ordered to pay costs of $30.

[2]      The second appeal, CRI 2006-404-200, is against conviction and sentence in the Manukau District Court on charges of failing to give way to a vehicle at an intersection; using a motor vehicle with an unauthorised registration plate; using an unlicensed motor vehicle; and operating a vehicle when that vehicle was not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection.  On the charge of failing to give way, the appellant was fined $150.  On each of the other charges he was fined $200. On all charges he was ordered to pay costs of $30.

Background facts

[3]      No issue is taken with the factual findings on which the convictions were founded.  In relation to the convictions in the North Shore Court, the evidence was that on 9 September 2005 Mr G   was observed driving without authorised registration plates.  When his vehicle was stopped it was found to have no current warrant of fitness or vehicle licence.   Maori sovereignty registration plates were affixed to the vehicle.

[4]      The charges dealt with in the Manukau District Court arose after Mr G   was observed driving his vehicle through an intersection without stopping or giving way to an approaching vehicle.  Again, his vehicle was found to have affixed to it only Maori sovereignty registration plates.   It had no current warrant of fitness or vehicle licence.

Discussion

[5]      Mr G   has filed detailed written submissions, which he has elaborated in his careful and restrained oral submissions.   I hope I will be forgiven for endeavouring to reduce his arguments to four principal propositions:

a)        Parliament does not have authority to pass laws which affect the rights of Maori.

b)       The  charges  against  the  appellant  should  have  been  determined according to customary Maori law.

c)        The police have no power and the District Court has no jurisdiction to deal with traffic or criminal matters affecting Maori.

d)The issues raised by the prosecution should have been dealt with by reference to Maori customary law and tikanga Maori.

[6]      These arguments or variations of them have been considered on previous occasions by this Court and the Court of Appeal, on at least one previous occasion on  an  appeal  by  Mr  G  :  G    v  Police  CRI  2005-404-269  HC  AK

9 December  2005  Baragwanath  J.    Ms  Longdill  referred  me  to  R  v  Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998, where it was pointed out that the general law of New Zealand does recognise and incorporate Maori customary law and the customary rights of Maori.  However, the Land Transport Act 1998 and related legislation  are not among the statutes which have expressly recognised and incorporated customary law and the customary rights of Maori.  That is essentially because that legislation seeks to promote road safety for all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori alike. No road user can reasonably expect to be exempt from its purview.

[7]      In Knowles the Court of Appeal explained  why it  is that  the Courts are obliged to recognise the supreme law-making power of Parliament and are empowered to apply its laws.   And, as Keith J, giving the judgment of the Court, said:

Faced with [the] orthodox exercise of the lawmaking power of Parliament this Court, like other courts, is obliged to give effect to the terms of the Act.

[8]      Like Baragwanath J in the earlier judgment I have referred to, I have been impressed by the courtesy and the obvious sincerity with which the appellant has advanced his argument.  However, given the fundamental principles to which I have only briefly referred and to which Baragwanath J also referred, there is no prospect of the appeal succeeding.

Result

[9]      The appeals must be and are dismissed.

Costs

[10]     When the appellant appeared before Baragwanath J, the Crown did not seek costs.  However, on this occasion on which essentially the identical issues have been argued, Ms Longdill submits that an award of costs is appropriate.   I agree.   The prosecution of an appeal to this Court is a right which a citizen is entitled to exercise. However, unsuccessful litigants must  be prepared to accept the consequences of failure and to make a contribution to the costs of the successful party.  The case for an order is strengthened when, as here, the unsuccessful party must have been aware that the prospects of success were negligible.

[11]     For these  reasons,  and  not  without  some hesitation  having  regard  to  the appellant’s sincerity and the restrained manner in which he advanced his arguments, I consider an award of costs is called for.  The appellant is ordered to pay the sum of

$500 towards the costs of the respondent.