Underhill v Police

[2014] NZHC 2270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-70 [2014] NZHC 2270

BETWEEN

WAYNE UNDERHILL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	18 September 2014 (by telephone)
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J E Tarrant for Respondent
Judgment:	18 September 2014

JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 September 2014 at 12.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor’s Office, Hamilton

UNDERHILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2270 [18 September 2014]

[1]      Mr Underhill seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal from my judgment delivered in the High Court at Hamilton on 1 July 2014.1

[2]      The proceedings in respect of this appeal were commenced before 1 July

2013. Accordingly, s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 applies.

[3]      For the High Court to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, there must be:

(a)       a question of law;

(b)       the question must be one which, by reason of its general and public importance, or any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal; and

(c)       the Court must be of the opinion that it ought to be so submitted.

[4]      Counsel  for  the  respondent,  Ms  Tarrant,   argued  that  Mr  Underhill’s application does not raise a question of law; nor any issue of law of general or public importance warranting an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[5]      In  my  judgment  dismissing  the  appellant’s  appeal  in  the  High  Court,  I

observed:

[5]       Plainly, the case advanced by the appellant is utterly without merit and I do not deem it necessary to outline once again why his challenge to Parliamentary sovereignty cannot succeed. As stated by Wylie J in Underhill v Police, it is an abuse of process for Mr Underhill to continue to make the same argument in the certain knowledge that it must fail.2   I further note that the appellant was told likewise by the Court of Appeal in a decision released on 9 June 2014.3   It is worth repeating those words:4

Although Mr Underhill may very well be sincere in his beliefs and genuine in his efforts to address what he considers to be an important issue, he has now taken up court resources to advance an argument that has been considered and rejected at least twice before. Arguments such as this, which Mr Underhill knows will fail, are an abuse of the court process and a waste of court resources.

1      Underhill v New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 1494.

2      Underhill v Police [2012] NZHC 3363 at [14].

3      Underhill v R [2014] NZCA 228.

4 At [12].

[6]      The issues Mr Underhill raises concern both Parliament and sovereignty.  The Courts, including the Court of Appeal, have dealt with this issue in various respects on a number of occasions.

[7]      The specific argument Mr Underhill raised in the High Court before me and in respect of which he now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has already been rejected by both the High Court5  and the Court of Appeal.  The basis of his proposed current appeal to the Court of Appeal is the same as that advanced before the Court of Appeal in Underhill v R.6  There the Court of Appeal held:

There is no such Act as the New Zealand Constitution Act 1952.  But in any event, regardless of the existence or otherwise of that Act, the proposed appeal  entails  a  challenge  to  parliamentary  sovereignty  and  so  cannot possibly succeed.

[8]      I accept Ms Tarrant’s submission that, pursuant to s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, there is no basis to grant the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.  Mr Underhill’s application does not raise any question of law; nor any issue of law of general or public importance warranting an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Result

[9]      The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is refused.

Goddard J

5      Underhill v Police; Underhill v Auckland Transport [2013] NZHC 2063.

6      Underhill v R [2013] NZCA 466.