Martin v Police - [2017] NZHC 1407

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 Respondent

Judgment:

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Martin v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 1407
Decision Date: 23 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter James Martin appeals against his conviction for driving while his license was suspended. The appeal is heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. Martin's arguments focus on several alleged errors made by the District Court Judge in the proceedings that led to his conviction. The primary legal issues before the court are whether the District Court Judge properly managed the disclosure process, addressed Martin's jurisdictional arguments, and correctly applied the law in convicting Martin. Martin argues that the District Court Judge failed to produce certain facts, allowed disclosure to be served too late, did not address his evidence of permit and customary status, and failed to require the prosecution to produce evidence of customary extinguishment of indigenous title or corporeal title.

The High Court found that the District Court Judge acted appropriately in managing the disclosure process and ensuring that Martin was not disadvantaged. The court noted that the Judge took measures to rectify the late disclosure by adjourning the hearing and providing Martin with the necessary documents, which Martin ultimately did not use. Regarding Martin's jurisdictional arguments, the court dismissed them as without merit, citing previous cases that rejected similar challenges. The court held that the District Court was correct in applying the Land Transport Act 1998 and that Martin's arguments about customary status and indigenous title had no bearing on the jurisdiction of the court to convict him.

In conclusion, the High Court found that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it, affirming Martin's conviction for driving while his license was suspended.

Orders