The Queen v Bonnie and Renata

[2009] NZCA 106

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA578/2008
CA579/2008
[2009] NZCA 106

THE QUEEN

v

WILLIAM JAMES BONNIE
SUSIE RENATA

Court:Robertson, Arnold and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:Appellants in Person

K Bicknell for Crown

Judgment:1 April 2009 at 2.30 pm

(on the papers)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Leave to appeal is refused.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

1. The appellants seek leave to appeal against the decision dismissing an application for discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.  The charges against the appellants have, however, in the meantime been dismissed after Judge Connell in a Judge alone trial found that the charges were not proved.

2. The appellants wish to pursue their leave application.  They also want to have their application dealt with by way of an oral hearing. 

3. We have decided that the matter should be dealt with on the papers and that leave to appeal should be declined.  We set out our reasons below.

Chronology of events

1. We need to briefly set out the relevant chronology.

2. In November 2007, the appellants were charged jointly with attempted arson and criminal damage.  On 25 August 2008 Judge Maze dismissed an application by Mr Bonnie and Ms Renata for a discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act: DC HAM CRI 2007-073-000571.  On 22 September 2008 the appellants filed a notice of application for leave to appeal with this Court against Judge Maze’s decision.

3. Issues were raised with the appellants about the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the leave application.  Ultimately, after the appellants maintained they wished to continue with the application, a Judge of the Court determined under s 392A of the Crimes Act and r 5D of the Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001 that the application and appeal should be dealt with on the papers.

4. The appellants meanwhile made a further application under s 347 and elected trial by Judge alone.  On 6 November 2008 Judge Connell dismissed their application under s 347 but found, in any event, that the charges were not proved.  Both appellants were discharged.

5. The appellants by letter of 13 December 2008 indicated they wished to continue with the leave application before this Court despite the result at trial. 

6. In letters dated 8 December 2008 and 29 January 2009, the appellants sought an oral hearing.  The Court in a minute dated 16 February 2009 indicated that the Court would like to have the appellants’ written submissions on the substance of the appeal before determining whether or not to change the mode of hearing.  Submissions have subsequently been filed by the appellants.

The submissions

1. The essential submission for the appellants is that the effect of the Treaty of Waitangi is to make them British subjects.  They say that they are therefore not subject to the New Zealand settlers’ government.  The New Zealand courts and the New Zealand police, it is said, have no lawful authority over them.

Discussion

1. There is no jurisdiction to hear the application as the Crimes Act does not provide a right to the appellants to appeal against the refusal to grant a discharge under s 347 of that Act.  Leave to appeal would be refused on that basis alone.  Even if there was jurisdiction, we would not grant leave because, as the Crown submit, the case is moot.  There are no outstanding charges.

2. The appellants maintain their application is still of substance essentially because of their argument that the New Zealand courts have no lawful authority over them.

3. This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions that such submissions are without merit: R v Brown [2007] NZCA 5, R v Harawira CA180/05 1 August 2005, R v Mitchell CA68/04 23 August 2004 and R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998.

4. There being no jurisdiction and no merit in the appeal, we decline to change the mode of hearing.  For the same reasons, we decline leave to appeal.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington