G v Police HC Whangarei CRI 2006-488-6

[2006] NZHC 923

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI.2006-488-0006

G

Intending Appellant

v

POLICE

Intended Respondent

Hearing:         7 August 2006

Counsel:        Intending Appellant in person

Anna  Patterson for Intended Respondent

Judgment:      7 August 2006

[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Copy for:

Mr Selwyn C M G  , Central HQ, Suite 2, c/o 7 River Road, Ngaruawahia.

G V POLICE HC WHA CRI.2006-488-0006  7 August 2006

[1]      On  29  June  2006  Lang  J  dismissed  an  appeal  brought  by  the  present intending appellant, Mr G  .   Mr G   now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against that judgment.  The matter is being dealt with as part of a callover in Whangarei, not by Lang J whose return to Whangarei is some distance into the future.

Background

[2]      Between April and October 2005 Mr G   was the recipient of a number of infringement notices.  He defended those notices at a District Court hearing over which Justices of the Peace presided, raising the issue of the Court’s jurisdiction as a defence to the charges.  He was, however, convicted on each of the charges and fined amounts varying  between $150.00  and  $200.00  with  Court  costs.    The  charges included using an unlicensed motor vehicle, where Mr G  ’s vehicle was not showing authorised number plates but in that location was bearing a representation of the flag prepared under the 1835 Declaration of Independence by the resident, James Busby.  That was also part of the second conviction, of using a motor vehicle with an unauthorised registration plate.  There were two sets of similar charges, and there was also a count of inconsiderately impeding traffic.

[3]      Mr G  ’s appeal to this Court was dismissed, as mentioned, by Lang J who took the view that both he and the District Court  were bound by the laws enacted  by Parliament  and  accordingly  there  was  no  basis  on  which  to  accept Mr G  ’s submission of no jurisdiction.

Leave Application

[4]      Mr G   now seeks leave to appeal, acknowledging in so doing that his ultimate intention is to have the issue placed before the Supreme Court and argued and determined in that forum.

Precedent

[5]      There are now a considerable number of cases at District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal levels where arguments identical or similar to those advanced by Mr G   have been propounded.  They have been universally dismissed (see the cases collected in Morunga v Police 16 March 2004 HC AK CRI.2004-404-8).

[6]      For present purposes it is necessary to note only some of the authorities to which Lang J referred.

[7]      In particular, in R v McKinnon (2004) 20 CRNZ 709 this Court dealt with a number of similar arguments advanced on behalf of a person charged with manufacturing methamphetamine.   McKinnon was slightly different in that the accused claimed to have been tried by the Confederation of Maori Tribes and acquitted but nonetheless the arguments advanced, considered and dismissed on that occasion, were somewhat similar to those Mr G   advances.

[8]      That case dealt with a number of similar issues.  At para [15] (p 713) some comment was made on the status of the Declaration of Independence 1835.  Had this matter not arisen in a circuit court , additional material could now have been added to the observations made on that occasion largely stemming from readings such as Moon & Biggs The Treaty and its Times (Resource Books 2004 pp 99-105).

[9]      The second argument advanced (at 713 para [16]) related to Te Ture Whenua

Maori/Maori Land Act 1993.   A similar decision in R v Miru (T992580 26 April

2000) was cited as giving no status to the Maori Land Court.

[10]     The next argument related to the Constitution Act 1986 (at 713 para [17]) and its possible relevance to the issues raised, some of which are similar to issues raised by Mr G  .

[11]     Fourthly, the decision discussed the Crimes Act 1961, s 5(1).   Ms Paterson for the Police on this occasion drew particular attention to the commentary on the evolution of the criminal law in New Zealand and pleas that it is inapplicable to

Maori now appearing in Robertson et al Adams on Criminal Law (para CA5.12 p 1-

103)

[12]     A number of other decisions were cited in McKinnon, all of which were unanimous as to outcome and some of which were Court of Appeal decisions:   in particular R v Clark (CA348/97 26 February 1998) was cited and a later decision to the same effect R v Mitchell (CA64/04 23 August 2004).

Submissions

[13]     Mr G  , however, argues that his position differs to some degree from others who have sought to invoke similar arguments.  He says :

“The unextinguished land Title and unextinguished Customary right is protected by the common law of New Zealand authorised by Te Wakaminenga  O Nga  Hapu O Nu Tireni,  reaffirmed at  Te Ti  Waitangi Marae 2004-2005 whereby Her Majesty the Queen, Her Governor General and the Chief Justice hold registry.”

[14]     Mr  G   says  that  as  a  member  of Te  Wakaminenga  his  position  is different, as his hapu acceded to the Declaration of Independence 1835.   He submitted, as a result :

“Courts of this country have no authority”

over him and -

“The Police have no consent from the Queen over me”

Discussion

[15]     Those are distinctions which Mr G   feels are important but nonetheless they do not disturb the same conclusion as that reached by Lang J.

[16]    For leave to be granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances requires the establishment  of a point  of law  of general or  public importance such that in the special circumstances of the matter a further appeal should be permitted.  (Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144).

[17]     Given that the review of the authorities mentioned earlier included at least two decisions in the Court of Appeal, where much the same arguments were rejected by the Court, it seems inevitable that, were special leave granted, the result would not assist Mr G  .

[18]     The only possible assistance might be were the Court of Appeal to dismiss his appeal, if leave was granted, which would thus provide him with an avenue perhaps to seek to appeal to the  Supreme  Court.   As mentioned  to  him during argument, under the Supreme Court Act 2003 s 14, there is admittedly a very limited but an existing right of direct appeal to the Supreme Court from courts other than the Court of Appeal.   However, s 14 debars the Supreme Court giving leave for such direct appeals against  conviction or sentence unless  it  is satisfied that  there are exceptional circumstances that  justify the proposed  appeal going  directly to  the Supreme Court, and that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine that appeal.  However, whether Mr G   wishes to seek leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court under s 14 is, of course, a matter for him.

[19]     For the  present,  judging  this  matter on the  formal  lines  required  by the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 s 14, there is no point of law of general or public importance demonstrated and there are thus no exceptional circumstances to grant leave to appeal.  The application is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………………

WILLIAMS J

7 August 2006