William aka Larsen v New Zealand Police Company

[2022] NZHC 2374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-575

[2022] NZHC 2374

BETWEEN

:scott-williams (also known as SCOTT WILLIAM LARSEN)

Plaintiff

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE COMPANY

First Defendant

ANDREW COSTNER
Second Defendant

NEW ZEALAND JUSTICE COMPANY
Third Defendant

ANDREW KIBBLEWHITE

Fourth Defendant

On the papers:
Judgment:	15 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                 The plaintiff has filed a statement of claim and four associated affidavits. The statement of claim has referred to me in my capacity as Duty Judge by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR).

[2]                 HCR 5.35A provides that if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceeding tendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Registrar may:

(a)as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing, refer it to a Judge for consideration under HCR 5.35B; and

WILLIAM v NEW ZEALAND POLICE COMPANY [2022] NZHC 2374 [15 September 2022]

(b)until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule, decline to sign, and release the notice of proceeding and attached memorandum.

[3]                 HCR 5.35B provides that if a Judge to whom a Registrar has referred a proceeding under HCR 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, the Judge may make a number of orders including that the proceeding be struck out.

[4]                 HCR 5.35B(3) provides that a Judge making such an order without giving the person who filed the proceeding an opportunity to be heard, must set out in the order or statement of that person’s right to appeal against the decision.

What is the concern?

[5]                 The statement of claim refers to events which occurred on 20 February 2022 and subsequently. The following events occurred that day:

·      A logging truck was observed driving towards the Rimutaka Hill with no registration plates and was in poor condition.

·      The truck was stopped by police. The driver was asked to turn the engine of his truck off so that the police could speak to him. He refused.

·      The driver was asked to provide his details but also refused saying that he did not have to provide them. A police check confirmed the driver as Scott William Larsen. A check of police records showed that Scott William Larsen had a fines warrant and was a forbidden driver.

·      Scott William Larsen was arrested. He refused to get out of the truck’s cab or unlock the door and indicated that he did not accept the jurisdiction of the police officers to arrest him.

·      In order to effect the arrest, the driver was sprayed through the slightly open driver’s window which resulted in him getting out of the cab and being transported to the Upper Hutt Police Station.

·      The truck was seized and impounded.

·      Scott William Larsen was charged with a number of offences including:

Øbeing the driver of a motor vehicle during a period that he had been forbidden to drive;

Øoperating a vehicle in a transport service without a licence;

Øresisting police in the execution of their duty.

[6]                 Because of the confused nature of the statement of claim, it is not possible to discern exactly what happened next but it seems that the plaintiff was convicted and fined, and his truck was sold to pay the fines.

Analysis

[7]                 The plaintiff contends that neither the police nor Justice system have any authority over him and categorises their actions in apprehending and prosecuting him as amounting to fraud, slavery, malfeasance of public office [sic] and deception.

[8]                 The statement of claim is full of pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo that is characteristic of the “sovereign citizen” school of thought.

[9]                 The Court of Appeal in Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections described the sovereign citizen movement as:1

…an ideology that first emerged in the United States in the 1970s. [The] core belief, for present purposes, is that [Sovereign Citizens are] not subject to the jurisdiction of the State (including legislation enacted by Parliament or decisions made by the Court). This belief is based (at least in part) on the dual persona-theory the proposition that individuals have two personas, one of the flesh and blood and the other a separate legal or “corporate” personality that is subject to the jurisdiction of the State. Followers of the Sovereign Citizen movement believe that it is possible to dissociate themselves from their legal or corporate persona, and hence free themselves from the jurisdiction of the State [they believe they have] successfully done this and, as a result, the State has no authority over [them].

1      Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [9].

[10]              The Courts have consistently held that it is an abuse of process for a litigant to attempt to employ sovereign citizen concepts in seeking to avoid or defeat any State, regulatory, contract, family or other obligations recognised by law.2

[11]              Consistently with the other cases where the sovereign citizen theory has been invoked to attempt to escape the jurisdiction of the Court, I hold that these proceedings are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court, and strike them out.

[12]              As required by HCR 5.35B(3), I advise the plaintiff that he has a right of appeal against this decision, such right to be exercised in accordance with those parts of the HCR dealing with appeals.

Churchman J

2      See Niwa v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 843, and James v District Court Whanganui [2022] NZHC 2309.