Underhill v Police - [2013] NZHC 2063

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2013-404-000067 [2013] NZHC 2063

BETWEEN WAYNE UNDERHILL Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2013-404-000065

CRI-2013-404-000066

BETWEEN

WAYNE UNDERHILL Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND TRANSPORT Respondent

Hearing: 2 August 2013

Appearances:

Appellant in person
B Hamlin for New Zealand Police
VR James for Auckland Transport

Judgment:

14 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 14 July 2013 at 12.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

UNDERHILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2013] NZHC 2063 [14 August 2013]

Background

[1] On 27 May 2013, I dismissed Mr Underhill’s appeal against the imposition of fines imposed on him on one charge of making an unsafe lane change, two charges of failing to display a current registration label on his car, and one charge of parking his car in excess of the specified time limit.

[2] He now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Leave may only be granted on a question of law and then only if, in my opinion, the question of law is one which by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.

[3] In his application for leave to appeal, Mr Underhill states he seeks leave on the following questions of law:

1 The New Zealand Constitution Act 1952 renders the Constitution Act
1986 invalid.

Alternatively

2 Woolford J also said that this is a misprint and the Statute Law Society have written on page 139 of the Statute Law Review, reference to the Soviet Law Reform which clearly indicates that this must be a misprint and he asked me to comment on that:

I replied that the perestroika in the Soviet Union, was a political reformation in the Soviet Union of 1986 and the Statute Law Society highlight the parallels between New Zealand in 1986 of restructuring of the political and economic systems.

[4] At the hearing of his application for leave to appeal, Mr Underhill provided me with three further documents. The first document related to the Treaty of Waitangi. It was a submission that the accepted history of the drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi is a complete and total fabrication and that the truth is Aperahama Taonui of Te Popoto was the principal author. The second document related to the Butterworths New Zealand Law Dictionary 4th Edition 1995 and the opinion of Crown counsel, Jo Mildenhall, that the two entries in the dictionary referring to the New Zealand Constitution Act 1952 are obvious misprints that were not detected by
the proof-readers or the editorial board.

[5] The third document was an exchange of e-mails between Mr Underhill and the former Professor Peter Spiller, the editor of the Butterworths New Zealand Law Dictionary 4th Edition 1995 (now Judge Spiller). In an e-mail to Mr Underhill, Judge Spiller confirms that the reference to 1952 was a typing error and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Underhill v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NZHC 2063
Decision Date: 14 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wayne Underhill sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal regarding fines imposed on him for traffic violations. The respondents were the New Zealand Police and Auckland Transport. The primary legal issue was whether the New Zealand Constitution Act 1952 invalidated the Constitution Act 1986, thereby rendering the Land Transport Act 1998 and associated regulations invalid. The Court was also asked to consider if there was a typographical error in the Statute Law Review that suggested the existence of a New Zealand Constitution Act 1952.

The Court found that Mr. Underhill's arguments were based on a fundamental error, as there is no New Zealand Constitution Act 1952. The Court highlighted that the reference to 1952 was a typographical error, confirmed by Crown Law Office and Judge Peter Spiller, the editor of the Butterworths New Zealand Law Dictionary. Despite the submissions made by Mr. Underhill, the Court concluded that his arguments lacked merit and did not present a question of law that warranted appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against Mr. Underhill.

Orders