J v Police HC Rotorua CRI 2007-463-145/6

[2008] NZHC 239

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI 2007-463-145/6

J

Appellant

v

THE POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         29 February 2008

Appearances: Appellant in person

C A Harold for respondent

Judgment:      4 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF ALLAN J

In accordance with r 540(4) I direct that the Registrar endorse this judgment with the delivery time of 10.30 am on Tuesday 4 March 2008

Solicitors/Parties :

A K J  , C/- Island Air 1 Aerodrome Rd, Mt Maunganui

Crown Solicitor Tauranga PO Box 13063, Tauranga

J V THE POLICE HC ROT CRI 2007-463-145/6  4 March 2008

[1]      Following a defended hearing in the Opotiki District Court on 15 November

2007, the appellant was convicted on the following charges:

a)        Obstructing the police. b)         Failure to control a dog.

c)        Owning a dog which rushed at a person in a public place.

[2]      Judge Ingram sentenced the appellant to 40 hours of community work on the charge of obstructing the police, and convicted and discharged him in respect of the two offences under the Dog Control Act 1996.   He also made an order for the destruction of two dogs.

[3]      The appellant appeals against his conviction.   He claims that neither the District Court nor this Court has any jurisdiction over him, because he is tangata whenua.  He referred at the hearing of the appeal to s 5 of the Te Turi Whenua Maori Act 1993.  That section simply provides that the Act binds the Crown.

[4]      When asked to develop his argument, Mr J   declined to do so.  He said that I ought to know the law and that it was the Court’s responsibility to consider the provisions of the Act, which he contends deprives both the District Court and this Court of any jurisdiction over tangata whenua.   Mr J   claimed that he had documents in his car which supported his position, but his car was not in Rotorua and it was not for him to prove his case.

[5]      Mr J  ’s submissions are utterly misconceived.  No provision in the Act deprives either the District Court or  this  Court  of  its  ordinary jurisdiction  over residents of this country.   This appeal is simply yet another challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament.  Constitutional challenges of that sort are bound to fail: see eg R v Brown CA354/06 14 February 2007 and the cases cited at [7] of that judgment.

[6]      The appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

C J Allan J