Te Moni v Police

[2023] NZHC 549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2023-404-000014

[2023] NZHC 549

BETWEEN

WIMARUKI DION DARRIN TE MONI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE & AUCKLAND TRANSPORT

Respondents

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	21 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 11 am.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor, Manukau.

KC England, Auckland Transport. Copy to: Appellant.

TE MONI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 549 [21 March 2023]

[1]                  On 10 January 2023, Wimaruki Te Moni filed an appeal in relation to a decision of the District Court declining to review alleged irregularities in connection with infringement offences.

[2]                  Mr Te Moni committed approximately 24 such offences between August 2018 and October 2022. Some of the infringement offences were issued by Police, the rest, Auckland Transport.

[3]                  At callover on 24 February 2023, the respondents questioned whether jurisdiction existed for an appeal. Edwards J held this should be determined, as a preliminary question, on the papers. The Judge directed Mr Te Moni and respondents to file submissions. They have done so.

[4]                  Mr Te Moni contends jurisdiction exists for an appeal by s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. This provision is concerned with appeals against conviction, and an infringement offence does not result in a conviction.   It follows   s 237 affords no jurisdiction.

[5]                  The respondents identify a suite of cases which hold the High Court does not have jurisdiction in this context.1 These include a decision of the Court of Appeal, Underhill v R. In that case, the Court said:2

Both Simon France and Gilbert JJ considered that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal Mr Underhill seeks to bring. Simon France J explained the position in this way:

I conclude by observing that I do not consider there was in any event jurisdiction for this appeal. There is considerable authority confirming

that a review decision of this sort is neither appealable under the general conviction appeal provision (s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957), HC appeal, above n 2, at [10]. nor under s 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 (which is limited to civil matters).

We agree. As this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal Mr Underhill seeks to bring, Gilbert J correctly refused leave.

1      Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 1367, Drew v District Court at Porirua [2014] NZHC 1678, and

Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2022] NZHC 3552.

2      Underhill v R [2015] NZCA 116 at [8]–[9] (footnotes omitted).

[6]                  Mr Te Moni also contends jurisdiction exists by s 124 of the District Court Act 2016. This provision is the successor to s 72 of the District Courts Act 1947, and as will be apparent from Underhill, s 72 was expressly rejected by the Court of Appeal as providing jurisdiction. The same must be true of s 124, which is in the same terms as s 72. Gault J reached exactly this conclusion in Rafiq v Auckland Transport:3

Section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 referred to in Underhill has also been repealed. However, the current provision, s 124 of the District Court Act 2016, similarly has no application in relation to an appeal against a District Court Judge’s review decision under s 106F of the SPA.

[7]                  For completeness, Mr Te Moni does not deny committing the infringement offences. Rather, his case is that the infringement offence regime does not apply to Māori, as Parliament had no authority to enact the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, or for that matter, any other legislation affecting Māori.

[8]This argument could not succeed as a matter of law.

Result

[9]The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

……………………………..

Downs J

3      Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2022] NZHC 3552 at [33].