Ransfield v Police - [2009] NZCA 460

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA383/2009
[2009] NZCA 460
ARETA RANSFIELD
v
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Hearing:22 September 2009

Court:O'Regan, Venning and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

A M Powell for Crown

Judgment:7 October 2009 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A            We grant an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal.
B            We dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by O’Regan J)
Introduction
[1]        Mr Ransfield seeks special leave to appeal against a decision of Dobson J (Ransfield v New Zealand Police HC WHA CRI 2008-488-14 21 November 2008) upholding a decision of Judge Callander convicting Mr Ransfield (and others) of trespass and fining him $500 with costs of $130 (Police v Senior DC KAI CRI 2006-029-001242-1245 14 May 2008).
[2]        Mr Ransfield’s application to the High Court for leave to appeal was dismissed by Stevens J: HC WHA CRI 2008-488-041 27 March 2009.
Applicable law
[3]        The application is made under s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The requirements of that provision were explained by this Court in R v Slater [1997] 1 NZLR 211 at 215 as follows:
It is sufficient to pose the statutory question: is there a question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision?

[4] The limited nature of the appeal under s 144 was emphasised in a later observation of the Court in that case (also at 215):
Section 144 was not intended to provide a second tier of appeal from decisions of the District Court in proceedings under the Summary Proceedings Act. Parliament intended such proceedings to be brought to finality with the defendant having an appeal to the High Court other than when the conditions it has specified in subss (2) and (3) are met and leave to appeal is granted. Neither the determination of what comprises a question of law, nor the question whether that pointy of law raises a question of general or public importance, are to be diluted.

Facts
[5]        The facts can be summarised briefly. The applicant and a number of others entered on land which is held by the Crown as part of a land bank for the purposes of future Treaty of Waitangi settlements. They had been warned to stay off the land but went onto it in what the District Court Judge described as a “planned, carefully considered, protest, a genuine cry from the heart about land they consider to be part of their ancestral right”.
[6]        It was these circumstances which led to the applicant and others being charged with trespass and, ultimately, convicted after a defended hearing in the District Court.
Questions of law
[7]        The questions of law for which leave to appeal is sought are not easily distilled from the voluminous material filed by the applicant. We think they can be fairly summarised as follows:

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.

Continue reading Ransfield v Police

Details

AGLC: Ransfield v Police [2009] NZCA 460
Case: [2009] NZCA 460
Decision Date: 7 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Areta Ransfield appealed against her conviction and fine for trespass on land held by the Crown. The Court of Appeal dismissed her application for special leave to appeal. The appeal was based on several arguments, including that the Crown could not act against her because she had injuncted it in 2005, that the land was not lawfully owned by the Crown, and that persons acting on behalf of the Crown could not act against her because only the Queen could do so. The Court of Appeal held that these arguments had no validity and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. They also extended the time for filing the application, despite it being out of time, because they had heard full argument on the application. The Court of Appeal did not award costs because the Crown did not seek them. The Court of Appeal also declined to add Patricia McLeod as an applicant because she was not a party to the earlier appeals.

Orders