Gregory v Police

[2013] NZHC 2482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-146 [2013] NZHC 2482

BETWEEN

REWI GREGORY

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:

(On the papers)

Counsel:

Applicant in person

M Hammer for Respondent

Judgment:

23 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

(Application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal)

Thisjudgment was delivered by me on 23 September 2013 at 3:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent (Copy to Applicant in person)

GREGORY v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2482 [23 September 2013]

Introduction

[1]   This is an application for leave to appeal my decision of 27 August 2013[1] to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

[1] Gregory v Police [2013] NZHC 2176.

[2] My decision upheld the applicant’s District Court conviction for driving a motor vehicle whilst his driver’s licence was suspended. The applicant’s grounds of appeal were founded on his understanding of Tikanga Maori and related matters.

[3] The respondent opposes the application. Due to the nature of the case, I will decide the application on the papers.

Leave to appeal

[4]      The governing provision is s 144(2) of the Act:

A party desiring to appeal to the Court of Appeal under this section shall, within 21 days after the determination of the High Court, or within such further time as that Court may allow, give notice of his application for leave to appeal in such manner as may be directed by the rules of that Court, and the High Court may grant leave accordingly if in the opinion of that Court the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[5]      The  task  of  the  Court  in  considering  whether  it  may grant  leave  under s 144(2) is therefore restricted to a consideration of whether a question of law exists which is of sufficient significance that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Section 144(2) does not confer a right of general appeal.

[6]      Application for leave to appeal under s 144 will be granted where there is:[2]

[2] R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211 (CA) at 215.

(i)a question of law;

(ii)) the question must be one which, by reason of its general and public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted  to the Court of Appeal; and

(iii)the Court must be of the opinion that it ought to be so submitted.

[7] The Court’s discretion extends to a right to refuse to grant leave even though there is a question of law involved and that question is one of general or public importance. However, the Court does not have a discretion to grant leave if no question of law arises in the appeal.[3]

The Application

[3] Ibid.

[8] The grounds of appeal filed in the Court make it clear that the applicant wishes to argue before the Court of Appeal the same (or substantially similar) points he argued before me. These go to whether laws made by Parliament apply to Maori.

Conclusion

[9] As I explained to the applicant during the appeal hearing, his argument (in its various guises) has been made before on many occasions, including in the Court of Appeal. There is no point in me granting leave for him to make the argument again.

[10] For this reason, I do not consider that the applicant’s questions of law raise issues of general or public importance that ought to be considered by the Court of Appeal.

[11] In reaching this conclusion, I do not imply that whether or not Maori are subject to laws made by Parliament is not, in a broad sense, of general or public importance. It is simply that the Courts have already pronounced on that. Nor do I imply that Tikanga Maori has no place in the law of New Zealand. Of course, in appropriate cases, it does. This is not one of them.

[12]    The application for leave to appeal is declined.

Brewer J