G v Police HC Auckland CRI 2006-404-298

[2006] NZHC 1461

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2006-404-000298

CRI 2006-404-000386

G

Appellant

v

POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         23 November 2006

Appearances: Appellant in person

P Williams for Respondent

Judgment:      23 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF FOGARTY J

[1]      These are two appeals by Mr G   against convictions for a number of offences under the Land Transport Act 1998 and under the Transport Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing Act 1986.

[2]      The appeals are based on an “order” of Te Kooti Marae Ki Waitangi which says, among other statements, that the New Zealand Police:

…  does not derive its authority from the “Crown”, the “Crown of England”, “Regina”, “Her Majesty the Queen”, nor a representative of such in accordance with the Public Finance Act 1989;  …

G V POLICE HC AK CRI 2006-404-000298  23 November 2006

And that body orders a dismissal of the matter.

[3]      As I have explained to Mr G  , I am familiar with this kind of argument which is put to the High Court from time to time.  This Court sits as a High Court of New Zealand constituted under the Judicature Act 1908 passed by the New Zealand Parliament and this Court and the Court of New Zealand Parliament simply does not recognise the authority of Te Kooti Marae Ki Waitangi.

[4]      There have been a number of decisions on this point by this Court and the Court of Appeal.   It is sufficient to refer to a decision of my brother Judge, Baragwanath J, in another appeal of Mr G  ’s, G   v Police (High Court, Auckland, CRI 2005-404-269, 9 December 2005).  It is not necessary to set out the reasons again as I am sure Mr G   is familiar with them.

[5]      Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.

[6]      The Crown has sought costs.  No costs were awarded in respect of the appeal dismissed by Baragwanath J.  However, there were another two appeals heard by this Court, G   v Police (High Court, Auckland, CRI 2006-404-29, 13 July 2006), brought by Mr G  , which were dismissed by my brother, Rodney Hansen J, and on this occasion he acceded to the Crown’s application for costs.  Like Baragwanath J, he recognised Mr G  ’s sincerity and courteous and restrained  manner  in which he advanced his arguments.   Mr G   has extended that courtesy again today in this Court.  But Rodney Hansen J considered an award of costs was called for.

[7]      As I have said to you, Mr G  , I think  your argument  is essentially political rather than legal and whilst this Court will always sit and listen there comes a point in time when you bring cases to this Court you have got to be prepared to pay for costs as a contribution incurred by the other party to the Court, in this case, New Zealand Police, who are sending their lawyer along.

[8]      Accordingly, I think it is appropriate that there be an order for costs against you and I order that you pay the sum of $500 towards the costs of the respondent.

Fogarty J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland, for Crown (Respondent)

cc:   SC G  , 7 River Road, Ngaruawahia 2171