Walker v The King

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 108/2024
[2024] NZSC 155

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER WALKER Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J G Fenton for Respondent
Judgment:	14 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was found in possession of 42 cannabis plants, which he admitted cultivating for his personal use. Charged with cultivating cannabis contrary to s 9(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, he elected trial by jury. He then challenged jurisdiction. He asserted that he was entitled to diplomatic immunity. He presented the Judge with a card which stated that he was a Kaitiaki Diplomat. Relatedly, it also stated that he was acting under tikanga and in accordance with He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand). For good measure, but less relatedly, he claimed also to be a Freeman-on-the-Land.
Judge Earwaker held the applicant lacked diplomatic status and was subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.[1] The applicant then entered a guilty plea. He was sentenced to 150 hours’ community work with 12 months’ intensive supervision.[2] A subsequent appeal against conviction and sentence failed in the Court of Appeal.[3]
[1]R v Walker [2023] NZDC 7619.
[2]R v Walker [2023] NZDC 27612.
[3]Walker v R [2024] NZCA 440 (Courtney, Mander and Walker JJ).
The applicant now seeks this Court’s leave to appeal his conviction and sentence. He claims the Court has no jurisdiction over him, that he has diplomatic immunity, that he has invoked his tikanga and customary rights, and that the Court must show proof that he is compelled to obey the Misuse of Drugs Act.[4]

Our assessment

[4]We record that we have taken into account the reply submissions filed by the applicant.

The grounds advanced reprise those presented in the Courts below. This Court must not give leave to appeal to it unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the appeal.[5] We are not satisfied in this instance that it is. The proposed appeal raises no matter of general or public importance.[6] Nor is there any likelihood that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the proposed appeal is heard.[7]

Result

[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(1).

[6]Section 74(12)(a).

[7]Section 74(2)(b).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Te Tari Ture o te Karauna ǀ Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker v The King involves an individual, Christopher Walker, who was found in possession of 42 cannabis plants, which he admitted cultivating for personal use. Walker was charged with cultivating cannabis contrary to section 9(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. He elected to be tried by a jury but subsequently challenged the court's jurisdiction by asserting that he had diplomatic immunity and was acting under tikanga, in accordance with He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand). The court dismissed his claims, and Walker eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 150 hours of community work with 12 months of intensive supervision. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was also unsuccessful. Now, Walker seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, reiterating his claims of diplomatic immunity and asserting that the court must show proof of his compulsion to obey the Misuse of Drugs Act.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Walker had diplomatic immunity, whether his claims of tikanga and customary rights had any bearing on the court's jurisdiction, and whether there was a likelihood of a substantial miscarriage of justice that would warrant leave to appeal. The court had to determine if the proposed appeal raised matters of general or public importance or if it was necessary in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard. The court needed to assess if the case presented any significant legal issues or if it was more of a reiteration of arguments already dismissed in lower courts.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court found that the grounds raised were a reiteration of those already dismissed in the lower courts. The court concluded that the proposed appeal did not raise any matter of general or public importance and there was no likelihood of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court held that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard, as the arguments were repetitive and did not present new or significant legal issues. The Supreme Court thus dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In summary, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Walker's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for cultivating cannabis. The court found that the grounds for appeal were repetitive and did not present any new or significant legal issues. The court concluded that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard, as there was no likelihood of a substantial miscarriage of justice. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established