McDowell v Police
[2013] NZHC 2635
•10 October 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CRI-2013-404-150 [2013] NZHC 2635
BETWEEN ROBERT BRIAN McDOWELL
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: On the papers
Judgment: 10 October 2013
JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J
This judgment was delivered by me on 10 October 2013 at 3.00 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….
Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
McDOWELL v POLICE [2013] NZHC 2635 [10 October 2013]
[1] In my judgment delivered 11 September 2013[1] I dismissed an appeal by the appellant against his conviction for failing to wear a seatbelt, contrary to s 40 of the Land Transport Act 1998 and r 7.10 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004. The appellant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision.
[1] McDowell v Police [2013] NZHC 2365 [11 September 2013].
[2] The application is brought under s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. It is established that the essential elements which must be established before special leave to appeal can be granted under s 144 are:
(a)A question of law;
(b)The question must be one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal; and
(c)The Court must be of the opinion that it ought to be so submitted.[2]
[2] R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211; (1996) 14 CRNZ 189.
[3] The questions identified in the application are the five key issues which I determined adversely to the appellant. They are:
(a)That the Justices of the Peace were required to identify themselves to establish jurisdiction;
(b)That the Justices of the Peace must be legally qualified in order to read and/or understand legal documentation and evidence and for the appellant to receive fair and impartial treatment;
(c)That it was not proven that the appellant was “who they said I was”;
(d)That the Justices of the Peace are not of sufficient status to stand in judgment over a human being; and
(e)The law requiring the occupant of a motor vehicle to wear a seatbelt does not apply to the appellant.
[4] The third of these questions is one of fact. The others, arguably, are questions of law but I am satisfied that none warrant being considered by the Court of Appeal. For the reasons given in my judgment dismissing the appeal, the appellant’s arguments have no prospect of success and neither by reason of their general or public importance or for any other reason, is there a proper basis for granting the appellant leave to appeal.
[5] The application is accordingly dismissed.
0