Phillips v Police

[2013] NZHC 1521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-488-71 [2013] NZHC 1521

BETWEEN  WHANAUNGA NEIL PHILLIPS Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CIV 2012-488-65

BETWEEN  WHANAUNGA NEIL PHILLIPS Applicant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:                   (on the papers)

Counsel:                  W N Phillips, Applicant in person

D M Stevens for Respondent

Judgment:                24 June 2013

JUDGMENT (NO. 2) OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 June 2013 at 2.00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WHANAUNGA NEIL PHILLIPS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 1521 [24 June 2013]

[1]      Mr Philips seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against my dismissal of his appeal against two decisions given by Judge Davis in the District Court at Kaikohe, on 17 September and 2 October 2012 respectively.1   Judge Davis had found him guilty and sentenced him for road transport offences.

[2]      Mr Phillips seeks an extension of time to apply.  I grant that application.

[3]      The  points  raised  by  Mr  Phillips  in  his  memorandum  in  support  of  the application contend (among other things) that the Maori Appellate Court had exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the dispute and that the New Zealand Parliament had no jurisdiction to enact the Constitution Act 1986.   In relation to the road transport offences on which he was convicted, Mr Phillips submits:

5.THAT  furthermore I require you to provide the appropriate record confirming that Whanau, Hapu have consented to the Crimes Act, Land Transport Act, Bail Act and any other enactment of the Parliament of New Zealand in accordance with the Articles of the he hakaputanga ote rangatira 1835 and the te tiriti o Waitangi 1840 to charge this whanaunga / tangata whenua / body / individual

6.THAT s 61 / s 62 of Te Ture Whenua Maori be applied by the court and all my prior submissions and the various sections of the Te Ture Whenua Maori be addressed

[4]      I do not consider that the points are arguable.  Plainly, they do not meet the threshold  required  for leave to  appeal  to  be granted.2      I adhere to  the views  I expressed in R v Mason3 to which I referred in my earlier decision.4

[5]      I dismiss the application for leave to appeal.   I have not called upon the

Police to respond to Mr Phillips’ application.  I do not consider it has sufficient merit to require that course.

Delivered at 2.00pm on 24 June 2013

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Whangarei

Copy to:

Applicant in person

P R Heath J

1      Phillips v Police [2013] NZHC 644.

2      Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 144(2).

3      R v Mason [2012] 2 NZLR 695 (HC).

4      Phillips v Police [2013] NZHC 644, at para [6].