Ingram v Police

[2013] NZHC 2377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-0033 [2013] NZHC 2377

BETWEEN  GUY TE HURINUI APANUI INGRAM Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:                   11 September 2013

Appearances:           Appellant in person together with Mr Gregory as a McKenzie friend

R B Annandale for Respondent

Judgment:                11 September 2013

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 11 September 2013 at 4.45 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ...................................

Solicitors:           Almao Douch, Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Copy for:           Appellant

INGRAM v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2377 [11 September 2013]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Ingram appeals against conviction imposed by Judge A I M Tompkins in the District Court at Huntly on 17 April 2013.1

[2]      Mr Ingram was charged with:

(a)      operating  a  private  vehicle  on  a  road  when  that  vehicle  was  not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection, being an offence pursuant to s 34(1)(b) Land Transport Act 1998 (“Act”); and

(b)operating a motor vehicle on  a road when it  was not licensed in accordance with Part 17 of the Act, being an offence pursuant to Land Transport  (Motor  Vehicle  Registration  and  Licensing)  Regulations

2011 (“Regulations”), reg 77(1)(a).

[3]      Judge Tompkins heard evidence on 17 April 2013.  At the conclusion of the evidence, the Judge heard submissions from Mr Ingram disputing the jurisdiction of the Court.  The Judge rejected those submissions and determined that the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt.  He imposed a fine of $200 in respect of the offending pursuant to s 34(1)(b) of the Act and $100 in respect of the offending pursuant to reg 77(1)(a) of the Regulations.  The Judge ordered Mr Ingram to pay Court costs of $132.89.

Appeal

[4]      On its face, Mr Ingram’s notice of appeal is against sentence only and it states that his ground of appeal is “The Judge in this matter failed to produce facts and law”.2

[5]      Before   me,   however,   Mr Ingram’s   submissions   were   confined   to   his convictions.   Mr Ingram does not dispute that he drove as alleged.   His appeal is

brought on the grounds that he is not subject to the Act and/or Regulations.

1 Police v Ingram DC Huntly CRI-2012-019-6803, 17 April 2013.

2 Notice of Appeal dated 17 April 2013.

[6]      Mr Ingram makes three principal submissions.

[7]      The first is that he is not a “person” within the meaning of s 34(1)(b) of the Act and/or reg 77(1)(a) of the Regulations.  Mr Ingram submits that the definition of “person” in the Interpretation Act 1999 (“Interpretation Act”) is such that a human being falls outside the definition.

[8] Section 29 of the Interpretation Act provides as follows:

29       Definitions

...

person includes a corporation sole, a body corporate, and an unincorporated body.

[9] The definition in s 29 is inclusive. I am satisfied that Mr Ingram is a person for the purposes of provisions to which I have referred.

[10]     In his second submission, Mr Ingram relied on High Court Rules, r 5.49. Rule 5.49(1) provides as follows:

5.49     Appearance and objection to jurisdiction

(1)       A defendant who objects to the jurisdiction of the court to hear and determine the proceeding may, within the time allowed for filing a statement  of  defence  and instead  of  so  doing,  file and  serve  an appearance stating the defendant's objection and the grounds for it.

[11]     The High Court Rules are made pursuant to s 51C(1) Judicature Act 1908. They regulate the practice and procedure of the High Court in civil proceedings and interlocutory applications.3   They do not regulate the conduct of any proceedings in the  District  Court.    For  that  reason,  I  am  satisfied  that  r 5.49  is  irrelevant  to Mr Ingram’s appeal.

[12]     In his third submission Mr Ingram requested clarification as to how it is that he is subject to the provisions of the Act and Regulations.  Crown counsel referred me to s 15(1) Constitution Act 1986 which provides:

15       Power of Parliament to make laws

(1)      The Parliament of New Zealand continues to have full power to make laws.

[13]     Crown  counsel  submits  that  the  Act  was  made  by  the  Parliament  of New Zealand and the Act, in turn, conferred power on the Governor General in Council to make the Regulations.4

[14]     I accept that submission.  I am satisfied that Mr Ingram was subject to the Act and Regulations accordingly.

[15]     No ground of appeal being made out, I dismiss this appeal.

[16]     Mr Ingram intimated that he would seek leave to appeal if I were to dismiss his appeal.  It will be for Mr Ingram to make an application for leave to appeal if he considers he has grounds on which to do so.

..................................................................

M Peters J