The Queen v Bonnie and Renata

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of The Queen v William James Bonnie and Susie Renata addressed the appellants' application for leave to appeal against a decision to dismiss their application for discharge under section 347 of the Crimes Act 1961. The appellants, who had been charged with attempted arson and criminal damage, sought to challenge the legality of the New Zealand courts' authority over them, arguing that the Treaty of Waitangi made them British subjects and thus not subject to the New Zealand government. This legal argument, however, was considered without merit by the Court of Appeal, which had previously ruled against similar claims in multiple cases.

The primary legal issues before the Court were the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the merit of the appellants' argument regarding the Treaty of Waitangi. The Court determined that the Crimes Act did not provide a right to appeal the refusal to grant a discharge under section 347, and even if jurisdiction existed, the appeal would be moot because the charges had been dismissed. The Court further found that the appellants' argument regarding the Treaty of Waitangi was unfounded, as it had been rejected in previous cases.

In declining to grant leave to appeal, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the appeal was both without jurisdiction and without merit. The Court emphasized that it had no authority to hear the appeal under the Crimes Act and that the case had become moot since the charges against the appellants had been dismissed. Additionally, the Court reiterated its previous stance that the argument about the Treaty of Waitangi had no legal basis. Consequently, the Court denied the appellants' request for an oral hearing and declined to grant leave to appeal.