Ward v Police
[2017] NZHC 1386
•22 June 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
CRI-2017-419-000028 [2017] NZHC 1386
BETWEEN RUSSELL STUART WARD
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
Hearing: 21 June 2017 Appearances:
Appellant in person
R Douch for the RespondentJudgment:
22 June 2017
JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J
This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 12:15 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton
WARD v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1386 [22 June 2017]
[1] On 10 March 2017, Russell Stuart Ward pleaded guilty to one charge of refusing to supply a blood specimen and one charge of failing to provide his name and date of birth when lawfully demanded. On the first charge, he was convicted and fined $500, ordered to pay Court costs of $130 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for six months. On the second charge, he was also convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within the next
12 months.
[2] Mr Ward now appeals against conviction and sentence. He sets out the grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal as follows:
Judge Spear misdirected the Court as he:
1. Refused to recognise the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
2. Demanded a plea even though there was no verified claim to plea to.
3. Demanded a plea, even though there was no plaintiff able to appear.
4. Refused to acknowledge a Supreme Court ruling.
5.Misquoted the Interpretation Act, and announced a living man was a corporation.
6.Acted as an Executor de son tort, by claiming power of attorney over a private estate.
7.Refused to acknowledge his Judicial oath, and acted in violation of said oath..
8.Allowed charges of Barratry and Personage to proceed, even after he was cautioned.
9.Ordered a living man to be categorised as a person, a corporation, so he could attempt jurisdiction, where he had no such jurisdiction.
10. Refused to recognise the Observance of Due Process of Law Statute.
11. Refused to recognise there was no probable cause.
[3] Mr Ward also set out the relief/orders sought as follows:
1. Scott Blair GOSNELL be enjoined on a charge of kidnapping;
2.Michael Paul PULLMAN, Brendon Alan VEYSEY, Amanda Broom, and Sergeant J. W Broom, be enjoined on a charge of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
3. Sergeant J. W Broom be enjoined in charges of Personage and
Barratry.
3.This case be heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, a court of equity, as is my right.
4. Complete withdrawal of all charges against the appellant, who is an
Executor.
5.An apology, both orally, from Scott Gosnell, Michael Pullman, Alan Veysey, J. W Broom, Amanda Broom, Commander Bruce Bird and Inspector Greg Nichols. and in writing from NZ Police, by publishing on the front page of the Waikato Times, a local newspaper, on the front page, within one week after termination of this action.
6.Monetary compensation as defined in Declaration of Claim of Right, and Crimes Act 1961, exact quantum to be determined.
District Court decision
[4] Mr Ward originally faced five charges to which he initially refused to enter pleas. At his appearance on 5 August 2016 a Community Magistrate entered not guilty pleas on his behalf.
[5] After two further appearances on 21 September 2016 and 1 December 2016 the charges were called on 10 March 2017 for the purpose of a defended hearing. When the hearing commenced, Mr Ward did not acknowledge that he was the defendant or that his name was Russell Stuart Ward. The District Court Judge noted that that was in line with the personal sovereignty contention that he had advanced in various documents he had filed with the court.
[6] The District Court Judge then advised Mr Ward that if he did not acknowledge that he was the defendant named in the charging documents then it was important that it was understood who he actually was. The District Court Judge then requested the prosecuting sergeant to ascertain his identity. The District Court Judge informed Mr Ward that a police officer is entitled to ask for identification particulars and if they are not forthcoming, the police officer is entitled to hold that person in custody until his identity is established. The District Court Judge then retired and the prosecuting sergeant discussed matters with Mr Ward.
[7] When the District Court Judge was asked to return to court, he was informed by the prosecuting sergeant that Mr Ward now intended to plead guilty to charges of refusing to supply a blood specimen and failing or refusing to give information as to name and date of birth. The prosecuting sergeant informed the District Court Judge that, in the event of those pleas of guilty being entered, the police would seek to withdraw the remaining charges.
[8] The charges were then put to Mr Ward by the Registrar. Mr Ward initially attempted to enter a qualified plea that he was doing so “under duress”. The District Court Judge explained to Mr Ward that the Court did not accept qualified pleas. The charges were eventually re-put and Mr Ward entered unqualified pleas of guilty to the two charges. On the application of the police, the District Court Judge then withdrew the other charges.
Discussion
[9] At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant continued with his contention that he was not Mr Ward. When I asked him what I should call him, he replied “Russell”. I thereafter addressed the appellant as Russell. There is no reason to doubt that the person who appeared in support of the appeal was the appellant, Russell Stuart Ward.
[10] When I invited the appellant to make submissions, he stated:
This is for the record. I’m here in body of flesh and blood.
I do not consent to these proceedings
Your offer is not accepted
I do not consent to being a surety for this case and these proceedings
I demand the bond be immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if damaged
[11] When I attempted to focus the appellant’s attention on the subject matter of
the appeal, he repeated the above words.
[12] The appellant appeared to be reading from a document and I therefore invited him to provide me with a copy so I could accurately record his submissions. He then provided me with a copy of the document, which is reproduced below:
DO NOT SIGN ANYTHING DO NOT GET A LAWYER
You tell the judge this word for word and nothing else
This is for the record. I am here in body of flesh and blood
(Now read these four sentences)
1. I do not consent to these proceedings
2. Your offer is not accepted
3. I do not consent to being a surety for this case and these proceedings
4. I demand the bond he immediately brought forward so I can see who will indemnify me if damaged
Your case will be dismissed
The judge has no choice other than to dismissal of your case he/she can not bring up the bond.
Then give this to every defendant. The courts will close down because the courts are a Private Business and not a justice machine as originally thought.
[13] I gave the appellant every opportunity to make any further submissions that he wished to do so, but he kept repeating the words contained in the document. As to the four issues raised by appellant in his oral submissions:
1.The appellant does not have to consent to the proceedings. He is the one who filed the notice of appeal, which presumably was a voluntary act on his part.
2. No offer of any sort was made by the court.
3.There is no suggestion that the appellant is a surety for the case or the proceedings.
4. There is no bond.
[14] The appellant did not seek to advance any of the grounds set out in the notice of appeal. In those circumstances, I do not intend to try and interpret what the
appellant meant, if he meant anything at all, by the grounds set out in the notice of appeal. On their face they do not appear to provide any basis for a suggestion that the District Court Judge erred in some way or that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
[15] The appeal is entirely misconceived and is groundless. It is dismissed.
Woolford J
0
0
1