Kururangi v Police

[2016] NZHC 2961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

CRI-2016-441-32 [2016] NZHC 2961

BETWEEN

MICHAEL KURURANGI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	6 December 2016 (by AVL)
Appearances:	Appellant in person M J M Mitchell for respondent
Judgment:	8 December 2016

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1]      Mr Kururangi has pursued appeals against conviction and sentence for his eighth and ninth convictions for excess breath alcohol, and for failing to stop when signalled to do so.

[2]      The first of these driving offences occurred on 2 January 2016.   On that occasion, the breath alcohol level was 813 micrograms.   Whilst on bail on that charge, on 10 May 2016 Mr Kururangi failed to stop when signalled to do so.  After what the sentencing Judge described as a “very slow speed chase”, he was apprehended and tested, recording a breath alcohol level of 790 micrograms.

[3]      On 16 August 2016, Judge Rea sentenced Mr Kururangi at the District Court

at Hastings to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment on both the drink driving charges.1

That sentence involved a discount of four months from a starting point of 16 months’

imprisonment,  on  account  of  Mr Kururangi’s  guilty  pleas.    In  addition,  special

1      Police v Kururangi [2016] NZDC 15885.

KURURANGI v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2961 [8 December 2016]

release conditions were imposed and Mr Kururangi was disqualified from driving for a period of one year and one day.

[4]      Mr Kururangi  was  represented  by  counsel  in  the  District  Court  but  has elected to pursue his appeal on his own behalf.  His notice of appeal cited a number of criticisms of the sentencing, and subsequently he filed handwritten submissions in support of his appeal.  Those submissions did not raise any conventional grounds of challenge to the circumstances of his convictions, or outline any arguments as to why the sentence imposed was excessive or wrong.

[5]      Mr Kururangi’s oral submissions began with an invitation to me to dismiss his sentence appeal, and advice that he was focusing on the wrongfulness of his convictions.   His propositions included that New Zealand statutory law does not apply to him, apparently (at least in part) because those who have been responsible for declaring or making the law of New Zealand are ignorant of what the real law should be.  Mr Kururangi considered it was sufficient to avoid conviction for him to think that the law (presumably relevantly the provisions of the Land Transport Act

1998) did not apply to him.

[6]      As I understood Mr Kururangi, misconceptions as to what the law should be are contributed to by the impacts of colonisation, and separately by respects in which individual   letters   in   the   alphabet   can   contribute   (in   Mr Kururangi’s   view) inconsistently to the meaning of words in which they appear.

[7]      Breaks in the audio visual connection to Mr Kururangi disrupted the flow of his submissions on these and other points.  However, the hearing was continued for sufficient   time  to   afford   me  a  full   opportunity  to   understand   the   esoteric philosophical points that he was making.

[8]      I am satisfied that none of these arguments could have any bearing on a challenge to the convictions entered.  The elements of the offence were inarguably made  out  and  there  is  no  possible  basis  on  which  Mr Kururangi  could  exempt himself from the application of the provisions of the Land Transport Act.

[9]      In assessing his arguments, I put to one side the fact that he had entered guilty pleas to each of the charges.   Mr Kururangi raised a suggestion that he had been pressured to plead guilty, at least to the charge of failing to stop when required to do so, but was unable to lay any foundation for such a claim.

[10]     Having  earlier  indicated  abandonment  of  his  appeal  against  sentence,  in response to questions from me confirming that, Mr Kururangi criticised two aspects. First, that there was no justification for the Judge to impose special conditions that are  to  apply  subsequent  to  his  release  from  prison.    He  contended  that  such conditions are unnecessary, that he has to stand on his own feet and will only be hampered by them. As Ms Mitchell submitted in response on this point, the personal circumstances reflected in the Probation Officer’s report, and the recidivist pattern of Mr Kururangi’s  driving  motor  vehicles  after  consuming  alcohol,  certainly  make those conditions appropriate and hopefully also supportive of his rehabilitation.

[11]     The second aspect was that the order made disqualifying him from driving for one year and one day amounted to destruction of the property he enjoyed in the driver’s licence that had been issued to him.  He treated it as his property, issued for a period up to 2025, that was unlawfully confiscated.  That criticism proceeds from an untenable expectation of the nature of any entitlement created by the issue of a driver’s licence.

[12]     Accordingly, there is nothing in the grounds for appeal as fully aired by

Mr Kururangi.  His appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Dobson J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Napier