Martin v Police
[2017] NZHC 1407
•23 June 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
CRI-2017-419-000018 [2017] NZHC 1407
BETWEEN PETER JAMES MARTIN
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 21 June 2017 Appearances:
Appellant in person
T V Clark for the RespondentJudgment:
23 June 2017
JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J
This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 23 June 2017 at 10:30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton
MARTIN v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1407 [23 June 2017]
Introduction
[1] Peter James Martin, who styles himself as Peter James Martin© for PETER JAMES MARTIN TM© ESTATE, appeals against his conviction for driving while suspended entered following a defended hearing in the Hamilton District Court on
15 March 2017. He does not appeal against the sentence imposed of a $250 fine with court costs of $130 and six months disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence.
Summary of facts
[2] On 27 May 2016 Mr Martin was served with a notice of driver licence suspension for excess demerit points. The notice advised Mr Martin that his driver’s licence was suspended for a period of three months starting from the time the notice was given to him. He was also advised that he would be unlicensed when the period of suspension ended.
[3] At about 9.00 pm on 18 July 2016 (i.e. within the three month period of suspension), Mr Martin was the driver of a 2003 red Suzuki moped scooter, registration 74UWT, travelling on Grey Street, Hamilton and was stopped by the Police because the scooter was not registered. Mr Martin’s licence was found to be suspended. The scooter was impounded and Mr Martin was served with a summons to attend court.
Grounds of appeal
[4] The grounds of appeal specified by Mr Martin in the notice of appeal are: (a) Judge failed to produce facts;
(b) Judge allowed disclosure to be served 48 hours before trial;
(c) Judge failed to address evidence of permit and customary status; and
(d)Judge failed to produce evidence from prosecution of customary extinguishment of indigenous title or corporeal title.
Discussion
[5] During the course of the hearing, Mr Martin provided me with the following documents:
(a) A “Nu Tireni Birth Certificate” naming “PETER-JAMES: MARTIN TM© as the child of JAMES-LAURENCE: MARTIN TM© and LORETTA-HAZEL: WESTBROOK TM©”, which appears to be signed and certified by Mr Martin himself.
(b)A “Common Law Copyright Notice” which purports to reserve rights of common-law copy right of the trade-name/trademark, PETER JAMES MARTIN TM©.
(c) A “POWER OF ATTORNEY” which states:
Know all Men by These Presents: That I, PETER JAMES MARTIN, the Debtor corporate entity, and ‘ens legis,’ the undersigned, hereby make, constitute and appoints Peter- James:Martin, herein, the flesh and blood man, a living soul, the secured party/Creditor as my true and lawfully Attorney- in-fact for me and in my corporate capacity (LLC), place and stead and for my personal and commercial use and benefit:
…
(d)A “HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT” with the parties specified as the debtor being PETER JAMES MARTIN and the creditor being Peter-James:Martin.
(e) “Statement of Understanding” received by the Minister of Internal
Affairs, the Hon Nathan Guy, in 2011.
[6] As best as I am able to ascertain the documents provided by Mr Martin have no relevance to his appeal against conviction. It was somewhat difficult to follow his oral submissions, but he appeared to assert that he was not subject to the Land Transport Act 1998 as it was only binding on a type of person known as the driver and he was certainly not a driver. He was a living being.
[7] He has made similar submissions previously. For instance, in Martin v Police, Mr Martin argued he was a human being and not a person for the purposes of the prohibition in s 9(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 on the cultivation of cannabis.1 His argument was rejected.
[8] Turning then to the specific grounds set out in the notice of appeal:
Judge failed to produce facts
[9] I agree with Crown counsel that the Judge carried no onus of proof in relation to any matters that came before the Court for determination.
Judge allowed disclosure to be served 48 hours before trial
[10] It is evident from the record of the District Court hearing that the District Court Judge became aware of issues relating to disclosure as the trial was progressing. The District Court Judge then stopped to consider the issue and made a conscious decision as to whether or not the hearing could or should proceed. He
made a specific ruling on the issue. He stated:2
The question then is, given what I can charitably describe as an evasive approach by Mr Martin including telling me that there was a house at 19
Albert Street when he knew that was not, whether service of the documents would have made any difference. I infer that he would have simply rejected the documents and then subsequently would have complained that he had
never received them. Can the situation be put right bearing in mind Mr
Martin’s part in the shortfall in the disclosure? I think it can. I therefore direct that in the face of the Court the officer in charge provide Mr Martin
with the full disclosure that would have been given to him days ago if he had
provided an address that meant anything instead of an address that he was not living at and which did not have a letterbox. I stand the matter down to
2.15 pm. I give leave to Mr Martin to have any witness recalled, to cross-
examine those witnesses on any of the disclosure that he is provided with. We are adjourned until 2.15 pm according.
[11] The Court therefore adjourned from 12.25 pm to 2.14 pm. The record of the District Court hearing records that at 2.14 pm Mr Martin then complained that an hour and three quarters was not enough time. In response, the District Court Judge
1 Martin v Police [2013] NZHC 2376.
2 Police v Martin [2017] NZDC 8234 at [7].
said he was prepared to adjourn the hearing until the next day if that helped. Mr Martin replied:
Well it doesn’t really help because it’s just inconvenient you know. You have to be here and I have to be somewhere else.
[12] The hearing then continued with Mr Martin’s consent and Mr Martin elected not to call evidence. All of this is recorded in the notes of evidence and in the oral judgment of the District Court Judge.
[13] I am of the view that the District Court Judge did everything possible to facilitate the hearing for Mr Martin and to ensure that he was not disadvantaged by late disclosure. In those circumstances, it was not an error on the part of the District Court Judge to proceed with the hearing. There was no miscarriage of justice as a result.
Judge failed to address evidence of permit and customary status; and Judge failed to produce evidence from prosecution of customary extinguishment of indigenous title or corporeal title.
[14] Both these grounds of appeal concern the issue of jurisdiction. There have been numerous cases before the Court regarding challenges to jurisdiction. Crown counsel refers to three – R v Mitchell,3 Phillips v R,4 and Phillips v R.5 For instance, in R v Mitchell, Hammond J stated:6
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 be served in retraversing the authorities.
[15] I agree. There is no substance in these grounds of appeal.
3 R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004.
4 Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225.
5 Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580.
6 At 14.
Conclusion
[16] The appeal is entirely without merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Woolford J
0
3
1