White v Police

[2016] NZHC 1617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI-2016-488-000012 [2016] NZHC 1617

BETWEEN

KARLA WHITE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

CRI-2016-488-000013

BETWEEN  CHRIS MATTHEW FERRI Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Defendant

Hearing:	18 July 2016
Appearances:	Appellants in Person M B Smith for Respondent
Judgment:	18 July 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF GILBERT J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Whangarei

And to:

Appellants

WHITE AND FERRI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1617 [18 July 2016]

[1]      Karla White and Chris Ferri apply for leave to appeal out of time against a decision of Judge Davis in Kaikohe District Court on 8 March 2016 declining their application protesting the jurisdiction of the Court in reliance on r 5.51 of the District Courts Rules 2014.1

[2]      The application for leave to appeal must be dismissed.   So too must the appeal.   Rule 5.51 of the District Courts Rules applies in civil cases and has no application to this proceeding which involves charges of intentional damage and behaving in a disorderly manner in circumstances likely to cause violence.

[3]      To the extent that the appellants claim that New Zealand Courts do not have jurisdiction over people living in New Zealand, they are mistaken.  In R v Mitchell, the Court of Appeal observed:2

[14]     This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions now that arguments  that are  based upon  an assertion  that the  Parliament  of  New Zealand was not authorised to make law affecting some or all of the persons living in New Zealand cannot succeed before it.   Our courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament … [a litigant] is not entitled to put himself outside the law of New Zealand.

[4]      The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.  The appeal is also dismissed.

M A Gilbert J

1      New Zealand Police v White and Ferri [2016] NZDC 8238.

2      R v Mitchell CA 68/04, 23 August 2004.