Tai v Police

[2013] NZHC 45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-264 [2013] NZHC 45

BETWEEN  ISRAEL TAI Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         4 February 2013

Counsel:         No appearance for Appellant

KV Mills for Respondent

Judgment:      4 February 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, P O Box 2213, Auckland 1140 for Respondent

(Email:  [email protected] )

Copy to:            Mr Israel Tai, c/o 21 Ashwell Crescent, RD2, Taupiri 3792 (Phone [phone])

ISRAEL TAI V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-264 [4 February 2013]

[1]     Mr Tai appeals against his conviction and sentence for driving whilst disqualified.    After  losing  his  licence  on  23 April  2012,  for  driving  under  the influence of alcohol, he was disqualified from driving or obtaining a driver’s licence for four months.

[2]      On 2 May 2012, he was stopped while driving a motor vehicle.  Although he defended the charge, he did not at any stage dispute that he was driving without a licence.  Rather, his defence in the District Court and the grounds on which he has indicated he will advance this appeal, are on what may be compendiously described as Maori sovereignty issues.  He has indicated an intention to argue that, as a Maori, he is not bound by the laws which have led to his conviction and sentence.

[3]      That is an argument that has been rejected many times by this Court.  Those decisions  have  been  upheld  in  the  Court  of Appeal  and,  more  recently,  in  the Supreme Court in Wallace v R.[1]

[1] Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.

[4]      Mr Tai has not appeared but his mother has explained his absence and sought an adjournment of the appeal.   She tells me that he has been living in Brisbane. Unfortunately, he has lost his passport and is in the course of completing the necessary paperwork to obtain a replacement.  He is accordingly unable to travel to be present for his hearing today.

[5]     I might have been receptive to a request for an adjournment in such circumstances were it not for the fact that, on 12 October 2012, Woolford J also considered an application for an adjournment of the appeal.  It had been set down for hearing on 15 October 2012 after having been called on 14 September, at which time Mrs Tai and her partner appeared.   Woolford J was advised that Mr Tai was in Australia but wished to proceed with the appeal and set it down for hearing on that

basis.

[6]     On 12 October, Mrs Tai again appeared for the purpose of seeking an adjournment.  Woolford J records in a minute that he explained to her that it is her son’s responsibility to prosecute the appeal and the Court cannot continue to adjourn it.  He granted a final adjournment and set the matter down for hearing today.  He concluded his minute by saying:

Mr Tai needs to understand that if the appeal is dismissed on that day, then his sentence of community work is reactivated and he should not therefore presume that he is able to return immediately to Australia, as he would need to make arrangements with the Probation Service, first to report to them and then complete the community work.

[7]      In the circumstances and given the clear view  I have expressed that the appeal has, in any event, no prospect of success, I am not prepared to grant the adjournment. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

[8]      Under s 137(4) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, I am required to specify a date on which Mr Tai is to report to the Probation Service for the purpose of commencing his sentence of community service.   In order to give him time to complete the necessary forms and make arrangements to return to New Zealand, I specify the date as 4 March 2013.