Greensmith v Police - [2021] NZHC 1001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-404-000336

CRI-2020-404-000389 [2021] NZHC 1001

BETWEEN
MICHAEL NOEL GREENSMITH

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 4 May 2021

Appearances:

No appearance by Appellant RJ Morrison for Respondent

Judgment:

6 May 2021

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 May 2021 at 12.30pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………………

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland To: M Greensmith, Auckland

GREENSMITH v NZ POLICE [2021] NZHC 1001 [6 May 2021]

Introduction

[1] On 27 October 2020, Judge Roberts in the Auckland District Court refused to remit of a number of parking and similar fines owed by Mr Greensmith.1

[2] Mr Greensmith appeals this decision. I should note at the outset that Mr Greensmith did not file any submissions on his appeal or appear at the appeal hearing. The following is accordingly taken from the written materials that are before the Court, and from the judgment under appeal.

Factual Background

[3] Mr Greensmith states in his notice of appeal that, in 2016, his (now former) landlord arranged to have his car towed and crushed. He says that he was made homeless as a result and that he purchased a car to live in but began receiving infringement notices from Police. He produced his own records in the District Court showing that he had received around 16 fines between 14 March 2017 and 31 May 2017. The total unpaid fines amount to $4,726.2

District Court decision

[4] In his judgment, Judge Roberts noted that he initially had difficulty isolating the issue in the matter. Mr Greensmith appeared to argue that he should not have to pay the fines as he had incurred them at a time when he was homeless and forced to live in his vehicle. The Judge referred to other proceedings relating to problems Mr Greensmith has had with his landlord. These were criminal proceedings relating to assaults (including assaults on his landlord).3 That matter had proceeded to trial before Judge Powell (as he then was) in the District Court.4 Mr Greensmith subsequently appealed to the High Court, where his appeal was dismissed by Downs J.5

1      District Court v Greensmith [2020] NZDC 25535.
2      At [1] and [3].
3 See the Memorandum of counsel for the respondent for callover, 9 February 2021 at [3].
4      New Zealand Police v Greensmith [2017] NZDC 23507.
5      Greensmith v New Zealand Police [2018] NZHC 2262.

[5] Judge Roberts observed that Mr Greensmith “appears to be consumed with claims of illegal and unfair misbehaviour which he lays unashamedly at the doorstep of the female landlord.”6 The Judge noted that Mr Greensmith alleged that his landlord had harassed him and “ruined [his] life” with her actions, which included seizing his passport and stealing an art collection owned by him valued at $80,000. Noting that these considerations were irrelevant and did not impact on Mr Greensmith’s liability for the infringement notices, the Judge declined to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Greensmith v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 1001
Decision Date: 6 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Michael Noel Greensmith appealed against the District Court's decision to refuse his request to remit a number of parking and similar fines. The appeal was heard on 4 May 2021 by Fitzgerald J, who ultimately dismissed the appeal on the same day. Greensmith did not appear or file any submissions at the hearing. The case arose from a series of fines issued to Greensmith in 2017, following the towing and crushing of his car in 2016 by his former landlord, an incident which left him homeless. He claimed that he should not have to pay the fines because he was living in his car at the time. The District Court judge declined to remit the fines, noting that Greensmith's ongoing dispute with his former landlord was irrelevant to his liability for the fines.

The legal issue in the appeal was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the District Court's decision. The court considered that the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 did not provide for an appeal against a refusal to remit fines, and that there was no other avenue through which Greensmith could challenge the decision in the High Court. The court also noted that, even if it did have jurisdiction, Greensmith had not provided any evidence of his financial position or other relevant matters that might have persuaded the District Court to remit the fines. Therefore, the court found no basis in the materials before it to suggest that the District Court judge erred in his decision. In the circumstances, the court dismissed Greensmith's appeal.

The court concluded that Greensmith had had an opportunity to pursue his appeal but had chosen not to do so. Given that he had not filed any substantive written submissions, and had confirmed that he would not be filing any, the court considered that the only appropriate outcome was to dismiss the appeal. The court further noted that, had Greensmith appeared at the hearing, it was highly likely that the appeal would have been dismissed in any event. The court did not express any view on whether a decision pursuant to s 88AE of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 may be amendable to an application for judicial review.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the costs of the appeal be paid by Greensmith within 14 days.

Orders