Peters v Police - [2012] NZHC 2263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-275 [2012] NZHC 2263

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER JOHN NEALE PETERS Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2012

Counsel: Appellant in Person (via teleconference) R Thomson for respondent

Judgment: 3 September 2012

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland – rebecca.thomson@meredithconnell.co.nz

Copy to: C J N Peters, P O Box 122, Thames 3540

PETERS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-275 [3 September 2012]

Introduction

[1] On 2 June 2012 the appellant, Mr Peters, was stopped on State Highway 25 near Kopu, at a routine traffic stop. He was issued an infringement notice for driving a Mazda Ute which had an expired registration label. This is an offence under ss 5(1A) and 5(2) of the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986.

[2] On 13 October 2010 Mr Peters was ordered to pay $200 by the Thames

District Court. Mr Peters did not pay the fine.

[3] A sentence of 40 hours’ community work was eventually substituted in relation to this fine, as well as another outstanding traffic fine, under s 88 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Mr Peters now appeals both the original imposition of the fine for having an expired registration label as well as the subsequent decision to substitute a sentence of community work.

[4] Mr Peters represented himself in this appeal, appearing today via teleconference.

Mr Peters’ arguments

[5] Mr Peters filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court on 10 November 2010. His grounds of appeal are expressed in the following terms:

It is a double take. Cannot be justice, this act is injustice. I have paid in full.

[6] In addition to his Notice of Appeal, Mr Peters has provided the Court with a document headed “Affidavit” which summarises his arguments in both appeals that are before the Court today1 in the following terms:

(a) No accurate identification of juristic persons as defined Black’s 7th
Artificial Persons. Refer exhibit 1 page 2;

(b) As of the law, designed to protect not compel. If this law cannot protect me, the law does not apply to me. There has been no infringement of life, liberty, or property, nor rights of a natural being as such it is my belief it is I Christopher John Neale Peters who is the damaged party, and therefore have every right to seek compensation for the injury, damages. Refer legal maxims 2 and 9;

(c) All are equal under the Law (God’s law – ethical and natural law) Exodus 21:23-25; Lev 24:17-21; Deut 1:17, 19:21, Matt 22:36-40, Luke 10:17; Col 3:25; and

(d) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.

[7] Any arguments to the effect that Mr Peters is not subject to the law cannot succeed, and the courts have consistently rejected such lines of argument.2 Once Parliament has enacted a law it is not for this Court to challenge its validity. However, based on the documents provided to the Court by Mr Peters and his oral…

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 Peters 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: [2012] NZHC 2263
Decision Date: 3 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Peters, was issued an infringement notice for driving a vehicle with an expired registration label. This offence occurred during a routine traffic stop on State Highway 25 near Kopu. The infringement was subject to a fine of $200, which Mr Peters did not pay. Consequently, a sentence of 40 hours of community work was substituted for the fine. Mr Peters appeals both the imposition of the fine and the substitution of the community work sentence. He represents himself in this appeal.

The primary legal issues for the court to address were whether the infringement notice was defective due to the misspelling of Mr Peters' middle name, whether the fine should be waived because the vehicle registration was later brought up to date, and whether the District Court had proper grounds to substitute community service in place of the fine. The court examined the relevant sections of the Summary Proceedings Act and considered Mr Peters' arguments and submissions.

The court found that the misspelling of Mr Peters' middle name on the infringement notice did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, as the notice correctly identified him and was properly served. Regarding the payment of the fine, the court determined that bringing the vehicle registration up to date did not excuse Mr Peters from paying the original fine for operating a vehicle with an expired registration label. Lastly, the court upheld the District Court's decision to substitute community work for the fine, given Mr Peters' financial difficulties. The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decisions of the District Court, including the substitution of community work in place of the fine.

Orders