G v Police HC Whangarei CRI-2006-488-6

[2006] NZHC 737

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2006-488-6, 7 & 18

G

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         29 June 2006

Appearances: Mr G   in person

Mr A M Dooney for Respondent

Judgment:      29 June 2006 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeals against conviction]

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei
Party:

Mr S M G  , 7 River Road, Ngaruawahia

G V NZ POLICE HC WHA CRI-2006-488-6, 7 & 18  29 June 2006

[1]      Between April and October 2005 Mr G   was issued with infringement notices in respect of five separate traffic offences.   In each case he sought a hearing and defended the charges.     In three separate decisions the Justices of the Peace convicted and fined Mr G   in relation to each charge.     Mr G   now appeals against his conviction on each charge.

Grounds of appeal

[2]      Mr G   does not seek to contest or challenge the substance of the charges against  him in any way.     Instead, he advances the appeal, as  he advanced  his defence in the District Court, on the basis that the police have no jurisdiction over him, that Parliament has no jurisdiction to pass legislation that binds him and that the Justices of the Peace had refused to recognise a Maori customary right, namely “that of the common law being Tikanga”.

[3]      Mr G   argues that the purported transfer of sovereignty did not affect customary property, and that those interests are preserved by operation of the common law until extinguished in accordance with the common law.

[4]      In short, although Mr G   advances his argument on several different bases, the ultimate proposition is that the laws of New Zealand do not apply to him and that the District Court had no criminal jurisdiction over him.   It is not necessary to traverse the various arguments advanced by Mr G   in any further detail.

Decision

[5]      The same, or similar, arguments as those advanced by Mr G   have been rejected  by  the  courts  in  New  Zealand  on  numerous  previous  occasions.      A summary of the relevant authorities can be found in R v McKinnon (2004) 20 CRNZ

709.      The  decisions  of the  Court  of Appeal  in  Knowles  v  Police  (CA146/98,

12 October 1998) and R v Mitchell (CA68/04, 23 August 2004) are also often cited in this context.   In Mitchell the Court said (at [14]):

This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions now that arguments that are based upon an assertion that the Parliament of New Zealand was not authorised to make law affecting some or all of the persons living in New Zealand  cannot  succeed  before it.    Our  courts  are  bound  to  accept  the validity  of  Acts  of  Parliament,  including  the Land  Transport  Act  1998. Although this issue does involve a point of law, Mr Mitchell’s proposition has been squarely rejected on many occasions in the High Court and Court of Appeal.     No useful purpose would then be served in re-traversing the authorities.   Mr Mitchell was perfectly familiar with them, and indeed was physically in possession of some of those authorities before us, including Knowles.   He just does not accept them.    He is not entitled to put himself outside the law of New Zealand.

[6]      Another useful decision is that of Randerson J in Barrett v Police (HC HM, CRI-2003-419-64, 14 June 2004).     In that case Randerson J noted (at [6]) that arguments such as those now advanced by Mr G   have been before the courts of New Zealand repeatedly, and that they have been rejected at all levels.

[7]      The  statements  of  principle  in  these  authorities  demonstrate  that  Mr G  ’s arguments have no substance.   Mr G   is bound by the laws of New Zealand in the same manner as any other citizen.

Result

[8]      Each appeal is dismissed.

Lang J