Phillips v R

[2013] NZCA 580

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA502/2013
[2013] NZCA 580

BETWEEN	NEIL GEORGE PHILLIPS Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	18 November 2013
Court:	Harrison, Simon France and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person M L Wong for Respondent
Judgment:	25 November 2013 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Harrison J)

Introduction

1. Neil Phillips was found guilty on one charge of carelessly using a motor vehicle on a public road under the Land Transport Act 1998 following a trial before Judge Davis in the District Court at Kaikohe.  He was convicted and fined $350 and ordered to pay Court costs.  Heath J dismissed Mr Phillips’ appeal against his conviction and sentence.[1]  The Judge later refused his application for leave to appeal to this Court on the ground that the point of law which Mr Phillips sought to raise was plainly unarguable.[2]

   [1]Phillips v Police [2013] NZHC 644.

   [2]Phillips v Police [2013] NZHC 1521.

2. Mr Phillips now applies for special leave to appeal to this Court.  His application raises a number of related propositions.  Compositely, they reduce to the point that the Land Transport Act and related legislation enacted by Parliament do not apply to people of Maori heritage.  His argument is to the effect that he is subject only to Tikanga Maori or customary law and thus the District Court had no jurisdiction to determine the charge.

3. Mr Phillips’ application does not raise an arguable question of law, let alone one which by reason of its general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to this Court for determination.[3]  The legal foundation for his argument has been considered and rejected by this Court[4] and also, significantly, by the Supreme Court[5] as plainly unarguable.  The leading decisions affirm that Parliament is sovereign and its legislation applies to all New Zealanders irrespective of race.  Thus New Zealand Courts are bound to accept the validity of all statutory enactments including the Land Transport Act, which as Ms Wong submits applies without limitation based on ownership, title or status of land and to all “roads” as defined by s 2.  It is unarguable that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge against Mr Phillips.

   [3]Summary Proceedings Act 1958, s 144.

   [4]Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225.

   [5]Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.

4. The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent