M v Police HC Auckland CRI-2005-404-211

[2005] NZHC 50

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2005-404-211
CRI-2005-404-213
CRI-2005-404-214
CRI-2005-404-215

CRI-2005-404-270

BETWEEN  M                Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         16 September 2005

Appearances: No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

Anna Longdill for Respondent

Judgment:      16 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

Copy to: Appellant in person

M V POLICE HC AK CRI-2005-404-211  16 September 2005

CRI-2005-404-270

[1]      On 26 July 2005 Mr   M      filed a notice of appeal against his convictions in the District Court at North Shore earlier that day on various charges under the Land Transport Act.  In particular he was convicted of (1) using an unlicensed  motor  vehicle;  (2)  failing  to  produce  his  driver’s  licence;  and  (3) operating a private vehicle on a road without displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection.  On two of the charges he was fined $200 and ordered to pay Court costs of $30 on each; on the other he was fined $55 and ordered to pay Court costs of $30.

[2]      On 25 August 2005 the registry gave Mr M      notice of a fixture to hear his appeal this afternoon.  He filed an extensive synopsis of submissions in support. The Crown has filed a synopsis in answer.  The Registrar called Mr M     ’s case in open Court and then in the precincts at 2.20 p.m. but he did not answer or appear. However, Ms Longdill advises that the Crown accepts that the prosecution did not lead any evidence in the District Court to support the charges which was required. Accordingly, I allow Mr M     ’s appeals on all three charges.

CRI-2005-404-211, 213-215

[3]      Mr M      has also filed appeals against his convictions in the District Court at North Shore on 31 May 2005 on various offences under the Land Transport Act for (1) using an unregistered vehicle on a road; (2) using a motor vehicle without registration plates; (3) failing to produce his driver’s licence for inspection; and (4) operating his vehicle on a road when it was not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection.  On the first two and the fourth he was fined $200 together with Court costs of $30; on the third he was fined $55 together with costs of $30.

[4]      On 25 August 2005 the registry gave Mr M      notice of this fixture also. He fixed an extensive synopsis of submissions together with related documents.  The Crown has also filed a synopsis in opposition.  The case was called in open Court and the precincts at 2.20 p.m. today.  Mr M      failed to answer or appear.  I have read his synopsis.   He has not raised an arguable ground in support of any of his

appeals.  His principal argument has been considered and dismissed by the Court of

Appeal (R v M     , CA68/04, 23 August 2004).  Accordingly, I dismiss all four appeals.

Rhys Harrison J