Power v Little - [2022] NZHC 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA NGĀMOTU ROHE

CIV-2022-443-1

[2022] NZHC 143

UNDER the Crimes Act 1961 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

BRETT WILLIAM POWER

Plaintiff

AND

ANDREW JAMES LITTLE

Defendant

On the Papers

Judgment:

10 February 2022

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] Mr Power presented for filing in the New Plymouth Registry of the High Court a proceeding against the above-named defendant. The proceeding has been given the Registry number CIV-2022-443-1. The proceedings were referred to me, as Duty Judge, by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

The proceedings

[2] The proceeding relates to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine (the vaccine), and Mr Power’s concerns about the nature, effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. It alleges three causes of action:

(a)A breach of s 165 of the Crimes Act 1961(Causing death that might have been prevented).

POWER v LITTLE [2022] NZHC 143 [10 February 2022]

(b)A breach of s 111 of the Crimes Act 1961 (False statements or declarations).

(c)A breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[3]The relief sought by the plaintiff is:

(a)That the defendant be brought to court to answer the charges of breach of ss 111 and 165 of the Crimes Act 1961 and breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

(b)A declaration that the COVID 19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment (Bill No. 2) 2021 is in breach of the Bill of Rights Act and s 111 of the Crimes Act 1961.

(c)An order that all COVID-19 instructions, orders and legislation arising from the defendant’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic be rescinded and repealed.

(d)That the special powers afforded a Prime Minister at s 5 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 be removed from the Act and replaced with the approval of Parliament.

(e)That the Court petition the Governor-General to remove the current Prime Minister and her government from office with immediate effect.

(f)That the New Plymouth Police immediately arrange for the arrest and detention of the defendant, awaiting trial for the alleged crimes.

The statement of claim

[4] The statement of claim is lengthy. It predominantly consists of what is put forward as evidence of the claims. It is accompanied by a bound volume labelled “Document List” which contains more detailed evidence. In general terms Mr Power’s complaints, so far as I can discern them, are that the defendant has relied on falsified

information taken from what are alleged to have been fraudulent clinical trials of the vaccine, in order to pass COVID legislation. Mr Power also pleads that the vaccine is not a traditional vaccine, it is a “genetic altering serum” which does not give lasting immunity. It has been falsely marketed as a vaccine, but is a medical device. These pleadings give rise to the allegations of breach of s 111 of the Crimes Act.

[5] In addition, Mr Power pleads that data recorded by…

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 Power v Little 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: [2022] NZHC 143
Decision Date: 10 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Power v Little, the plaintiff, Brett William Power, filed a proceeding against the defendant, Andrew James Little, in the New Plymouth Registry of the High Court. The proceeding alleged three causes of action: a breach of section 165 of the Crimes Act 1961, a breach of section 111 of the Crimes Act 1961, and a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The plaintiff sought various declarations and orders, including the removal of the Prime Minister from office. The defendant moved to have the proceeding struck out on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The court found that the proceeding did not set out a valid legal cause of action and that the plaintiff had misunderstood the meaning of sections 111 and 165 of the Crimes Act. The court also found that the relief sought was beyond the power of the Court. The proceeding was struck out, and the plaintiff has a right of appeal against this decision.

The court considered whether the proceeding met the criteria for striking out under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. The court found that the proceeding was plainly an abuse of the process of the Court as it did not set out a valid legal cause of action and required the defendant to respond to matters that were almost solely matters of evidence. The court also found that the proceeding could not be amended to turn the plaintiff's concerns into valid claims against the defendant. The court considered the appropriate course was to strike out the proceeding.

The court found that the proceeding did not set out a valid legal cause of action as it was unnecessarily prolix and pleaded irrelevant material. The court also found that the plaintiff had misunderstood the meaning of sections 111 and 165 of the Crimes Act. The court found that the relief sought was beyond the power of the Court. The court struck out the proceeding, and the defendant was to be served with this judgment. The plaintiff has a right of appeal against this decision.

Orders