W v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2007-463-68

[2007] NZHC 1826

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2007-463-68

BETWEEN  W

Appellant

AND  NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         11 June 2007

Appearances: Appellant, Mr W  , in person

Simon Bridges for Respondent

Judgment:      11 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J

SOLICITORS

Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Respondent

(copy to: Peter W  , 17 Victoria Street, Opotiki)

W V POLICE HC ROT CRI-2007-463-68  11 June 2007

[1]      Mr W   (aka W) was convicted in the District Court at Whakatane on 16 May 2007 on charges of cultivating cannabis and possessing a firearm without licence.   Following a lengthy discourse with Judge Louis Bidois, Mr W   entered pleas of guilty to those charges.  A further charge of refusing to provide fingerprints was dismissed.   He was sentenced to 100 hours community work.

[2]      Mr  W    has  appealed  against  his  conviction  and  sentence.    He  has presented a succinct written submission in support, to which he has spoken today. He has addressed me with courtesy and conviction.  His essential ground of appeal is that  as  a  sovereign  subject  of  Te Oneone  Native  Tribes  he  claims  sovereign immunity from jurisdiction.   Accordingly, he submits that he has a constitutional right to have the charges heard elsewhere.  In essence, he submits that the Courts of New Zealand have no mandate to hear these charges.

[3]      I appreciate Mr W  ’s argument.  However, it is beyond dispute that this Court has jurisdiction.  I must follow the Court of Appeal’s decision in R v Brown [2007] NZCA 5 where Chambers J said this at [7]:

This challenge to sovereignty has frequently been raised by Maori in recent cases in the High Court and this Court.  This Court has repeatedly said it is not an issue which can be addressed and resolved by the Courts: see, by way of example, R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998, R v Mitchell CA68/04

23 August 2004, and R v Harawira CA180/05 1 August 2005.  As was said

in all those cases, the issues which [the appellant] seeks to raise are matters

‘for public and political processes and not for judicial ones’.

[4]      Mr W   must understand that I am bound by that decision.  If he wishes to challenge jurisdiction then he must convince the Court of Appeal that its decisions in Brown and earlier cases were wrong or seek leave to go to a higher Court. Additionally,  as  Mr Bridges  points  out  in  his  submissions,  Mr W    has  not attempted to lead any evidence which would support a threshold application for leave from this Court to withdraw his guilty pleas.  He admitted the offending in the

District Court.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Rhys Harrison J