James v The Corporation New Zealand Police

[2019] NZHC 462

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CIV-2019-483-1

[2019] NZHC 462

UNDER

Authorised Version of the King James Bible, Common Law Jurisdiction / The Law of the Land, Magna Carta 1297, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER OF

Judicial Review

CRN: 15083101180
15083101181, 15083101182
POLICE v JONES

BETWEEN

JAMES

Claimant

AND

THE CORPORATION NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Wrongdoer

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	15 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1]    This proceeding been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 so that I may consider exercising the power under r 5.35B(2)(a) to strike it out on the basis that it is plainly abusive.

[2]    Having considered the proceeding, and the materials that have been filed by the claimant, I have concluded the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process of the Court and that it should be struck out. These are the reasons for my decision.

JAMES v THE CORPORATION NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 462 [15 March 2019]

Factual background

[3]    Although the full factual background to the matter is not apparent from the documentation that the claimant has filed, the essential nature of the underlying events and the claims are reasonably clear.

[4]    The starting point appears to be that infringement notices were issued to the claimant by the Police under the authority of the Land Transport Act 1998. The claimant himself describes the circumstances in one of the documents filed by him in the following way:

The· Incident

I was stopped by a Police Constable, on Gonville Avenue, Wanganui, for operating a vehicle without registration and for failing to produce a Driver's License;

I was asked to identify myself to which I gave the name James. The constable wanted a “Family name” but I said that I do not have one as I am James, son- of James.

The constable was cautioned that a Claim Of Right existed and was given a copy of said Claim Of Right to peruse.

…

It was after that, I was presented with the Infringement Notice which contains the details of the artificial person [legal fiction] James JONES DoB 8 January 1951 of 11 8 Ikitara Road.

…

[5]    The infringement notice covered two offences — using an unregistered motor vehicle (for which an infringement fee of $100 was payable) and the failure to produce a driver’s licence (for which a fee of $55 was payable).

[6]    The reference to the Claim Of Right appears to be reference to a document that is amongst the materials filed with the Court which, over 14 pages, appears to advance an argument that the Crown has no jurisdiction in relation to such matters. It states, inter alia:

65.That anyone, their principals or their agents who interfere with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this Claim of Right and who fail to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that

such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure, and;

66.That the courts of New Zealand are de facto and are in fact a profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim that they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services, and;

67.That my consent to perform on any statutory obligation can only be granted by a written, signed and notarised document, and;

68.That I do hereby deny consent to any transactions of a security interest issued under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act, and;

69.The unlimited right to travel freely and unmolested throughout the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms and that evidenced perfection of this Claim will act as sufficient documentation for entry and travel to and on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, and;

…

[7]    The documents made available are a little unclear to the extent that there may have been at least one more alleged infringement, described as relating to “no evidence of inspection”, and possibly two other infringements in relation to operating an unlicensed motor vehicle and failure to produce a driver’s licence. Nevertheless, whatever the correct position is, a court procedure seems to have been followed and court fines issued. There is also reference to actions taken by bailiffs to enforce the fines, and to the existence of attachment orders.

[8]    Amongst the documentation are numerous letters written by the claimant protesting against these actions, including letters to the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Justice and others.

[9]    The claimant now seeks to advance his complaints by way of this judicial review proceeding. A statement of claim has been filed accompanied by an affidavit from the claimant. Although the statement of claim is not very clear, it nevertheless seeks an order declaring his convictions void, requiring property taken from him under an attachment order to be returned, together with damages and costs.

[10]   The proceeding  was  initially  referred  to  Clark  J  for  consideration  under r 5.35B. She directed that further information be provided by the claimant in relation

to the underlying infringement offences and other details. By letter dated 17 February 2019 the claimant has duly provided further information in response to those questions.

Jurisdiction

[11]Rule 5.35A provides:

5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge before service

(1)This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets the formal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.

(3)However, the Registrar may,—

(a)      as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and

(b)      until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) to serve the proceeding.

[12]Rule 5.35B also provides:

5.35B Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions before service

(1)This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceeding under rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.

(2)The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—

(a)      the proceeding be struck out:

(b)      the proceeding be stayed until further order:

(c)      documents for service be kept by the court and not be served until the stay is lifted:

(d)      no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filed the proceeding files further documents as specified in the order (for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars of claim).

(3)Rule 7.43(3) does not apply. However, if a Judge makes an order on the Judge’s own initiative without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard, the order must contain a statement of that person’s right to appeal against the decision.

(4)A copy of a Judge’s decision to strike out a proceeding must, if practicable, also be served on the person named as a party or, if more than 1 person is named, those persons named as parties to the proceeding.

(5)See rule 2.1(3)(b) concerning the exclusion of the jurisdiction and powers of a Judge under this rule from the jurisdiction and powers of an Associate Judge.

[13]   As a consequence of s 8(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 both of these rules apply to a judicial review proceeding. The right to bring judicial review is a fundamental right, recognised by s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. But the right to bring a judicial review proceeding is to do so “in accordance with law”.

[14]   The power in the rules is to be exercised sparingly. The Courts have adopted the following test:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes for it to follow the applicant’s document to be treated as a proper document.

[15]   It also seems to me that the normal concepts taken into account by the Court when assessing whether a proceeding is an abuse of process inform the test referred to above.

Application of the present case

[16]   Applying that approach, for three inter-related reasons I conclude that this proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.

1      Mathieson v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258 at [4]–[7]; and Mathieson v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032 at [6].

[17]   First, the statement of claim is not in a state that would allow a party to respond to it. It is a discursive document that refers to many sources including the oath given by the Queen on her Coronation, the Judicial oath, the Nuremburg Trials and a series of judicial authorities. It does not advance a coherent judicial review claim that is able to be addressed within the jurisdiction of the Court. It would be manifestly unfair to expect a respondent to respond to the document.

[18]   Secondly, and notwithstanding the lack of clarity, the essential claim seems to challenge the very jurisdiction of the executive and judicial branches of the Crown to regulate matters such as land transportation, to create infringement notices, or to enforce them before the courts. It appears to be a constitutional challenge. On the face of the document such arguments appear to be untenable. There can be no realistic challenge to the very authority to enact legislation, promulgate rules and regulations under that legislation, or to enforce such laws before the Courts.

[19]   Finally any arguments to be made about the infringement notices, or subsequent enforcement action, were able to be advanced by the claimant through the normal appeal avenues. It is an abuse of process for there to be a collateral attack on the conclusions of the courts in relation to offences through subsequent judicial review proceedings.2

[20]   For these reasons the proceeding is struck out as plainly an abuse of process under r 5.35B(2)(a). A copy of this decision should be provided to the claimant by the Registrar. I record that the claimant has the right to appeal this decision. A copy of the judgment should also be served on the respondent.

Cooke J

2      Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 94, [2013] 1 NZLR 804 at [22]; and Walker v Nelson District Court [2018] NZHC 1967 at [8].