M v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2008-463-77

[2010] NZHC 714

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2008-463-77

CRI-2010-463-02

M

Appellant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:         14 May 2010

Appearances: Appellant in person

Ms L Owen for respondent

Judgment:      14 May 2010 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against conviction and sentence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 May 2010 at 11 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

Copy to:

Mr F L M  , 7 Aonini Road, Turangi, Taupo 3334

M V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2008-463-77  14 May 2010

subject to a direction prohibiting him from driving.

[2]      He contends, in broad terms, that he is not subject to the laws that Parliament enacts.  For that reason he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts.

[3]      The same, or similar, arguments as those advanced by Mr M   have been rejected by the courts in New Zealand on numerous previous occasions.   A summary of relevant authorities can be found in R v McKinnon (2004) 20 CRNZ

709.   The decisions in the Court of Appeal are Knowles v Police CA146/98, 12

October 1998 and R v Mitchell CA68/04 23 August 2004 are also often cited in this context.  In Mitchell the Court of Appeal said at [14]:

This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions now that arguments that are based upon an assertion that the Parliament of New Zealand was not authorised to make law affecting some or all of the persons living in New Zealand  cannot  succeed  before  it.    Our  courts  are  bound  to  accept  the validity of Acts of Parliament, including the Land Transport Act 1998. Although this issue does involve a point of law, Mr Mitchell’s proposition has been squarely rejected on many occasions in the High Court and Court of Appeal.    No useful purpose would then be served in re-traversing the authorities.   Mr Mitchell was perfectly familiar with them, and indeed was physically in possession of some of those authorities before us, including Knowles.   He just does not accept them.   He is not entitled to put himself outside the law of New Zealand.

[4]      Another useful decision is that of Randerson J  in Barrett  v Police   HC Hamilton CRI-2003-419-64 14 June 2004.  In that case the Judge noted at [6] that arguments such as those that Mr M   now advances have been before the courts of New Zealand repeatedly, and that they have been rejected at all levels.

[5]      I therefore reject the submission that Mr M   makes on this point. [6] No other grounds were advanced in support of the appeals.

Lang J