R v Brown

[2007] NZCA 5

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA354/06
[2007] NZCA 5

THE QUEEN

v

LEONARD BROWN

Court:Chambers, Robertson and Arnold JJ

Counsel:Appellant in Person

M J Inwood for Crown

Judgment:14 February 2007     at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal out of time is granted, but the appeal is dismissed.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)

Manufacturing methamphetamine

[1]       Following trial by jury, Leonard Brown was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine.  The trial judge, Simon France J, subsequently sentenced him to two years nine months’ imprisonment on that charge.  That sentence was cumulative on an earlier sentence of four years three months’ imprisonment imposed by Lang J.  Lang J’s sentence related to a raft of drug offending, involving methampethamine and heroin (both class A controlled drugs) and cannabis (a class C controlled drug).

[2]       Mr Brown did not appeal against Lang J’s sentence, but he has now sought to appeal, out of time, against his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine and the sentence imposed by Simon France J. 

Issues on the appeal

[3]       As we have said, Mr Brown’s appeal was filed out of time.  Although there appear to be no valid grounds justifying a late appeal, we have decided, as an indulgence, to grant leave to appeal, really so as to reassure Mr Brown that we have considered the substantive matters he has raised. 

[4]       Mr Brown filed two submissions in support of his appeal, the first dated 1 December 2006, the second dated 19 January 2007.  Essentially Mr Brown challenges the current constitutional arrangements in New Zealand.  He asserts that, as a Maori, he is not subject to laws made by the New Zealand Parliament.

[5]       We record that we have considered Mr Brown’s appeal against conviction and sentence on the papers under s 392B of the Crimes Act 1961.  We also note that Mr Brown in fact sought a “determination on the papers”.  The relevant materials, including written submissions which have been received in accordance with r 29 of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001, have been considered by the members of the court, who have conferred and agreed upon this judgment. 

A challenge to New Zealand’s constitutional order

[6]       Mr Brown asserts that he has “never fully knowingly nor willingly accepted the jurisdiction of the European colonial courts imposing [their] authority” over him and his people.  As a consequence, he challenges the legality of his trial and asserts he is now “held in custody as a political prisoner”.  He effectively asks that his case be referred to “any Maori incorporation or incorporations in their collective capacity…as a third party intervenor…to deal with matters as they see fit”.  In his second submission, he explains in more detail as to why all the laws of the New Zealand Parliament are unlawful. 

[7]       This challenge to sovereignty has frequently been raised by Maori in recent cases in the High Court and this court.  This court has repeatedly said it is not an issue which can be addressed and resolved by the courts: see, by way of example, R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998, R v Mitchell CA68/04 23 August 2004, and R v Harawira CA180/05 1 August 2005.  As was said in all those cases, the issues which Mr Brown seeks to raise are matters “for public and political processes and not for judicial ones”. 

[8]       Apart from the constitutional challenge, Mr Brown raises no matters of concern about the way in which his trial was conducted.  Accordingly, his appeal against conviction must fail. 

[9]       Mr Brown also appealed against sentence, although he presented no submissions on that topic.  He did, however, attach to his submissions a “judgment” of “Te Kooti Rangatira Ateha and Te Kooti Marae Hiruharama”, to whose jurisdiction he was apparently prepared to submit.  We note that under that judgment Mr Brown was sentenced to a “life sentence of ten years with a right of parole after three years served”.  In fact that purported sentence is longer than the cumulative sentence to which Mr Brown is legally subject.

[10]     Notwithstanding the absence of submissions, we have considered the sentence imposed.  Two of us (Chambers and Arnold JJ) consider that the sentence Simon France J imposed was entirely appropriate.  The third member (Robertson J) considers the sentence of two years nine months’ imprisonment stern, having regard to the totality principle, when taken in context with the four years three months’ imprisonment Lang J imposed.  But even Robertson J considers the sentence neither manifestly excessive nor otherwise wrong.  All three of us are accordingly at one in dismissing the appeal against sentence. 

Solicitors:
Appellant in Person
Crown Law Office, Wellington