Te Pairi v The King - [2023] NZHC 992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GISBORNE REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TŪRANGANUI-A-KIWA ROHE

CRI-2022-416-11

[2023] NZHC 992

BETWEEN
BENJAMIN TE PAIRI

Plaintiff

AND

THE KING

Defendant

Hearing: 26 April 2023 (via AVL/VMR)

Counsel:

Appellant in Person

C Stuart for Respondent

Judgment:

28 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Leave for second appeal against conviction]

Introduction

[1] Mr Te Pairi was convicted by a Magistrate of one charge each of driving without a current warrant of fitness and driving without a valid vehicle registration.1 He seeks leave of the Court to bring a second appeal against his conviction on these charges.

Background and procedural history

[2] Mr Te Pairi was pulled over driving a motor vehicle in Gisborne by Sergeant Brooking on 9 April 2021. After speaking to the driver, the Sergeant completed a vehicle record check and discovered that the car’s registration and warrant of fitness

1 These charges were laid pursuant to the following provisions respectively; s 34(1)(b) of the Land Transport Act 1998 (maximum penalty $2,000 fine); and reg 77(1)(a) of the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licencing) Regulations 2011 (maximum penalty $1,000 fine).

TE PAIRI v R [2023] NZHC 992 [28 April 2023]

had expired in 2013. As a result, Mr Te Pairi was subsequently issued with infringement notices.

[3] Mr Te Pairi defended the charges and appeared in front of a Community Magistrate on 9 February 2022. Sergeant Brooking was called to give evidence and identified Mr Te Pairi as the driver of the vehicle. The Sergeant also confirmed that Mr Te Pairi was on a public road and that the vehicle he was driving did not have a current warrant of fitness or registration. Mr Te Pairi did not dispute the Sergeant’s evidence. Instead, he submitted repeatedly (both during cross-examination of the Sergeant and before the Magistrate) that the name on the infringement notices referred to a “fictitious entity” and not Mr Te Pairi personally.

[4] The Magistrate found the charges proven on the evidence, and convicted Mr Te Pairi accordingly. He was fined $300 for failing to register his motor vehicle, and a further $400 for failing to have a valid warrant of fitness. He was also ordered to pay court costs of $130.

[5] Mr Te Pairi then appealed the Magistrate’s decision to the District Court. Judge Bolstad dismissed the appeal on 22 August 2022.2 The District Court’s judgment is brief:

[1]Mr Te Pairi, we are here because you have filed an appeal notice in respect of a Community Magistrate’s decision on 9 February 2022.

[2]Mr Te Pairi, where I am going with this is that I am going to dismiss your appeal because you do not have any grounds for appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Approach on appeal

[6] Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 second appeals against conviction require leave of this Court. The Court must not give leave for a second appeal unless:3

(a)the appeal involves a matter of general importance or public importance; or

2 Te…

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 Te Pairi v The King

Details

AGLC: Te Pairi v The King [2023] NZHC 992
Case: [2023] NZHC 992
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Te Pairi v The King concerns the plaintiff, Benjamin Te Pairi, who was convicted of driving without a current warrant of fitness and driving without a valid vehicle registration. The matter was first heard before a Community Magistrate, who found the charges proven and convicted Te Pairi accordingly. Te Pairi subsequently appealed the Magistrate’s decision to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal. Te Pairi now seeks leave of the High Court to bring a second appeal against his conviction. The central issue before the Court is whether Te Pairi has established grounds for leave to appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court must consider whether the appeal involves a matter of general importance or public importance, or whether a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Te Pairi’s argument hinges on his contention that the infringement notices naming him as the offender were issued to a “fictitious entity” and not to him personally. He further argues that the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 confers jurisdiction on a Māori court to make decisions governing his affairs that are binding on the Court. The Court found that Te Pairi’s arguments are based on a pseudolaw theory that lacks any legal foundation and have been consistently rejected by the courts. The Court held that Te Pairi’s appeal does not disclose any matter of general or public importance, nor any suggestion of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was declined.

Orders