R v Police HC Hamilton CRI-2010-419-75

[2010] NZHC 2149

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2010-419-75

BETWEEN  R

Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         24 November 2010

Counsel          Ms R   in Person with Adrian Kirk - McKenzie Friend

A M Beveridge for the respondent

Judgment:      24 November 2010

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF POTTER J

on appeal against conviction

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, P O Box 19-173, Hamilton 3244

Copy to:            A R  , 13A Leeds Street, Silverdale, Hamilton 3216

R V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI-2010-419-75  24 November 2010

[1]      At the conclusion of submissions I dismissed Ms R  ’s appeal against conviction.  My reasons for that decision follow.

[2]      Ms R   was charged under s 23 of the Summary Offences Act 1981 that she intentionally obstructed a constable, namely Christopher David Polglase in the execution of his duty on 5 November 2009.

[3]      The matter was heard before Judge Riddell.[1]   The Judge  heard the witnesses for the Crown.   Ms R   asked questions of those witnesses.   The Judge then found the charge proved.  She convicted Ms R   and discharged her.

[1] New Zealand Police v R  , DC Hamilton CRI-2009-019-010173, 17 August 2010

[4]      Ms R   by notice of appeal dated 10 September 2010 appeals against the conviction.  It is somewhat difficult from the grounds stated in the notice of appeal to identify the grounds of the appeal.   However, in oral submissions made by Ms R   this morning I ascertain that the basis of her appeal is as follows:

a)        Judge Riddell prejudged the matter and did not give her a fair hearing. b)     The Police witnesses lied in giving their evidence.

c)       Sovereignty issues.   I believe it is contended that the Court did not have jurisdiction in this matter, although Ms R   said in her oral submissions that she was not challenging the jurisdiction of the Court and it was a matter of equity, to which she referred at some length.  It is quite clear from a number of her submissions that she indeed, on the  basis  of  Maori  sovereignty,  challenges  the  jurisdiction  of  the Court.

d)Breach of her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other statutory provisions.

e)       She claims that the Children, Young Persons & Their Families Act has some relevance to this matter, and refers to “child abuse”.

[5]      The Crown filed written submissions in which the evidence in the District Court was analysed.  The Crown referred to the decision of Judge Riddell when she said:[2]

I have reached the clear view that Ms R   was intentionally obstructing Constable Polglase in the execution of his duty.  She was warned a number of times not to interfere, but her agitated state, which I have observed in Court today, was I find, present on that day.  She did not take the advice of the police not to become involved.   She continued to act in an abusive manner and I find the charge of intentional obstruction to be made out.

[2] At [8].

[6]      Dealing with the grounds of appeal as I have been able to ascertain them from Ms R  ’s submissions:

a)       Prejudgment/unfairness:   There   is   no   indication   that   the   Judge prejudged this matter or that in any way she treated Ms R   unfairly.  The notes of evidence show that the prosecution evidence was given in the normal way.  Ms R   was given the opportunity to cross-examine.  The Judge took fair and reasonable steps to ensure the hearing was conducted in a fair manner and that Ms R   had the opportunity to present her case.  It is not surprising that on the odd occasion  the  Judge  interrupted  Ms  R  ,  directing  her  that  she might not make speeches but could address questions in cross- examination.  It is clear to me that Ms R   is not disposed to focus on the issues in hand.  She has demonstrated this in her submissions today.

b)The  Police  lied:    The  Judge  heard  the  witnesses.    Three  Police Officers who were eye-witnesses, gave evidence.  Their evidence was consistent.  The Judge made credibility findings which were entirely open to her.  There is no basis upon which this Court should interfere with those credibility findings.

c)       Challenge to jurisdiction – I treat it as such.  I have made it quite clear to Ms R   that this point has no merit.  There is ample authority of the Courts, which have consistently rejected Maori sovereignty arguments made in protest to jurisdiction.

The Crown refers to two such authorities in its submissions: Cooper v

Attorney-General[3] and R v Mitchell.[4]

[3] Cooper v Attorney-General [1996] 3 NZLR 480, 483.

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

d)Breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act:   There is absolutely no evidence to support this contention.   Ms R   was charged.   She was tried fairly.  She was convicted.  Ms R  , as a citizen of this country, is subject to the laws of New Zealand.

e)       Children, Young Persons & Their Families Act 1989:  This statute can have no relevance in the circumstances of this case.

[7]      [I note that at this point it was necessary to have Ms R   and Mr Kirk removed from the Court because of their constant interruptions.]

[8]      I am quite satisfied there was evidence on which the District Court Judge could properly convict.  There is no merit in any of the grounds of appeal or points made in submissions today, as I have been able to ascertain them.  I agree with the submission made by Ms Beveridge for the Crown that Ms R   was leniently treated by being convicted and discharged.

[9]      The appeal is dismissed.