Pompey v Police HC Auckland CRI 2010-404-191

[2010] NZHC 1740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2010-404-191

BETWEEN  HARE POMPEY Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         27 September 2010

Appearances: No appearance by or on behalf of Appellant

Nathan Speir for Respondent

Judgment:      27 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[1]      On 3 March 2010, after a defended hearing, Mr Pompey was convicted in the District Court at Hamilton on a charge of driving while disqualified, third or subsequent offence.  The relevant statutory provisions are ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4) Land Transport Act 1998.  On 27 May 2010 Mr Pompey was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and 12 months further disqualification from driving to commence on

15 January 2011.  Mr Pompey at once filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence.

[2]      Mr Pompey has at all times represented himself.   His stated grounds of appeal are:

(1)      Refusal to uphold Queen's Law.  Common Law Jurisdiction. (2)          Contravention of statutes in law.

(3)      Contracted with sending state.

(4)      I am a British Protected Person.

POMPEY V POLICE HC AK CRI-2010-404-191  27 September 2010

(5)Was present in Hamilton District Court 25/5/2010.   Remanded at large on trust until 29/6/2010.

(6)      Breach of contract and trust.

(7)Ignorance of the law is no excuse participated in Judicial Corruption and Bribery.   Committing an offence under the Crimes Act 1961 section 100.

These grounds appear to be consistent with the defence he pursued at trial.  I will say more of that shortly.

[3]      Mr Pompey has taken no steps since filing his notice of appeal.  On or about

17 September 2010 the Court sent to him at the address of 12 Read Place, Hamilton the standard document giving the hearing date.  I am advised by Mr Speir, counsel for the Crown, that he attempted to contact Mr Pompey by telephone on a number of occasions, leaving messages with a person who answered the telephone.   This morning Mr Speir telephoned again and this time the telephone was answered by the appellant who told Mr Speir that he wished to pursue the appeal, that he was not aware of today's hearing and would not be coming to Auckland from Hamilton to attend it.  Mr Speir advised the appellant to contact the Court.  I am advised that he did contact the Court and said much the same as he had done to Mr Speir.

[4]      If there were any merit at all in Mr Pompey's appeal, I would adjourn the hearing and give him another opportunity to appear.  However, there is not.  At his trial in the District Court there was no issue that the ingredients of the charge had been proved by the prosecution.  Mr Pompey's sole defence was that he was entitled to drive on this occasion because he had a "traveller's permit" issued to him by a Maori incorporation pursuant to (as he would have it) the Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993.

[5]      The same or similar arguments as those advanced by Mr Pompey have been rejected by the Courts in New Zealand on numerous previous occasions.  A summary of the relevant authorities can be found in R v McKinnon.[1]    The decisions of the

[1] R v McKinnon (2004) 20 CRNZ 709.

Court of Appeal in Knowles v Police[2]  and R v Mitchell[3]  are also often cited in this context.  In Mitchell the Court said:

[14]     This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions now that arguments  that  are  based  upon  an  assertion  that  the  Parliament  of New Zealand was not authorised to make law affecting some or all of the persons living in New Zealand cannot succeed before it.   Our Courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament, including the Land Transport  Act  1998.    Although  this  issue  does  involve  a  point  of  law, Mr Mitchell’s proposition has been squarely rejected on many occasions in the High Court and Court of Appeal.   No useful purpose would then be served in re-traversing the authorities.   Mr Mitchell was perfectly familiar with them, and indeed was physically in possession of some of those authorities before us, including Knowles.  He just does not accept them.  He is not entitled to put himself outside the law of New Zealand.

[2] Knowles v Police CA146/98, 12 October 1998.

[3] R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004.

[6]      Accordingly,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  conviction  of  Mr  Pompey  was properly entered.

[7]      As to the sentence, this was Mr Pompey's fifth conviction for driving while disqualified, third or subsequent offence.  Imprisonment was inevitable and the three months term (which has, of course, been served) was well within the range available to the Judge.   The further period of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver's licence of one year was also inevitable.

[8]      The appeals are dismissed.

Brewer J

SOLICITORS:

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

(Copy to Appellant in person)