Underhill v Police

[2014] NZHC 1494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2013-419-70 [2014] NZHC 1494

BETWEEN

WAYNE UNDERHILL

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	30 June 2014
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J E Tarrant for Respondent
Judgment:	1 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF GODDARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 July 2014

at 3.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors Office, Hamilton

UNDERHILL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 1494 [1 July 2014]

Introduction

[1]      This is an appeal against sentence.   On 7 August the appellant was issued with three infringement notices for not displaying a current vehicle inspection certificate, operating a motor vehicle on the road when it was not licensed, and failing to produce a driver’s license for inspection.  The infringement notices were upheld by a Community Magistrate in the District Court on 22 August 2013.  The appellant appealed to the District Court on the basis that Parliament did not have the legal authority to enact the Land Transport Act 1998.   The Judge dismissed the appeal, relying on a decision issued by Woolford J in the High Court issued on 27

May 2013.1   The Judge ordered costs against the appellant pursuant to the Costs in

Criminal Cases Act 1967 and Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1987.

[2]      The appellant appeals against that decision in respect of the infringements and costs imposed.

Approach on appeal

[3]      This  matter  commenced  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  The appeal is therefore governed by the general right of appeal provided by s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

Discussion

[4]      I accept the submission advanced by Ms Tarrant on behalf of the respondent that this appeal should be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.  Ms Tarrant referred the Court to seven cases in which the appellant has challenged the jurisdiction of the Court and Parliamentary sovereignty on exactly the same basis on which he now

appears to be advancing the argument in support of this appeal.2  The respondent also

seeks an award of costs pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. The appropriate sum pursuant to the Costs in Criminal Cases Regulations 1987 is

$226.00.

1      Underhill v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 1213.

2      Underhill  v  R  [2013]  NZCA 466,  Underhill  v  New  Zealand  Police  [2013]  NZHC  2063, Underhill v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 2063, Underhill v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 416, Underhill v New Zealand Police [2013] NZHC 97, Underhill v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 3363, Underhill v R [2011] NZCA 301.

[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.3     I further note that the appellant  was told

likewise by the Court of Appeal in a decision released on 9 June 2014.4   It is worth

repeating those words:5

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.

[6]      It is appropriate to award costs of $226.00 in favour of the respondent.

Conclusion

[7]      The appeal is dismissed.

[8]      Costs of $226.00 are awarded in favour of the respondent.

Goddard J

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

4      Underhill v R [2014] NZCA 228.

5 At [12].