Martin v Police

[2014] NZHC 2668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-419-32 [2014] NZHC 2668

BETWEEN	PETER JAMES MARTIN Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	29 October 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in person T C Tran for Respondent
Judgment:	29 October 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against conviction]

MARTIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2668 [29 October 2014]

[1]      Following a defended hearing in the District Court, Judge Spiller convicted Mr Martin on a charge of failing to comply with a lawful requirement given to him under the Land Transport Act 1998 by an enforcement officer.1    The charge arose out of the fact that Mr Martin allegedly drove a motor vehicle during a period in which he had been forbidden to drive by an enforcement officer.

[2]      Mr Martin sought to defend the charge in the District Court on the basis that the  District  Court  had  no  jurisdiction  over  him.    Although  he  developed  that argument to a significant extent, it is not necessary for present purposes to traverse his argument.

[3]     Mr Martin has appealed against conviction on the same ground.   He acknowledged during the hearing today that this Court is bound by numerous decisions of the Court of Appeal to this effect that the courts of New Zealand have jurisdiction over all citizens, and that the Court cannot find that the District Court did

have jurisdiction in respect of any individual in relation to criminal charges.2

[4]      Mr Martin is anxious to advance his argument before the Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court.  He tells me that he has in fact endeavoured to have the present appeal dealt with by the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal has advised him that it currently has no jurisdiction in respect of the appeal.  That is correct.  Mr Martin must first proceed with his appeal to this Court, and if it does not succeed he must then seek leave or special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[5]      As Mr Martin acknowledges, I am bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal to which I have referred.   I cannot uphold his appeal on the basis that the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge against him.  That being the case, the appeal is dismissed.  Mr Martin will no doubt now seek leave to

appeal to the Court of Appeal so that he can have the issue aired in that Court.

Lang J

1      New Zealand Police v Martin DC Hamilton 2013 019 5493 and 6496, 16 June 2014.

2      See eg R v Mitchell CA 68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14] and Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580 at [3].

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Copy to Appellant