BROOKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 125

BROOKER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 125 [10 May 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA702/2017[2018] NZCA 125BETWEEN ALLISTAIR PATRICK BROOKERApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 2 May 2018Court: Kós P, Brewer and Gendall JJCounsel: Applicant in person (via AVL)E J Hoskin for RespondentJudgment: 10 May 2018 at 2 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to apply is granted.B The application for leave to appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Brewer J)[1] Mr Brooker was convicted by Judge Saunders on 5 May 2017 in theGreymouth District Court on a charge of defacing a building, namely theGreymouth Police Station, by writing on it without lawful authority and withoutconsent of the occupier.1 He appealed to the High Court and his appeal was dismissedby Mander J on 30 October 2017.2 He now applies for leave to appeal to this Court.[2] Mr Brooker has previously sought leave to appeal to this Court on similargrounds in another case.3 However, Mr Brooker submits that in the previous case hesought to rely on the proclamation by Lieutenant Governor William Hobson on30 January 1840,4 whereas now he considers the proclamation "garbage". That isbecause, he submits, Māori did not cede sovereignty and hence theLieutenant Governor had no basis to proclaim it. In consequence all Acts ofParliament, including the Summary Offences Act 1981 under which he wasprosecuted, are unlawful.[3] Despite his change of argument, the position for Mr Brooker is the same as setout by this Court in 2014. We quote the relevant passages and adopt them as applicableto the current application:5[3] Pursuant to s 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, leave mayonly be given for an appeal against the determination of an earlier appeal ifthe appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, or if amiscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur, unless the appeal isheard. Neither applies in this case.[4] Mr Brooker's proposed appeal does not involve any issue of generalor public importance, and there is no suggestion that a miscarriage of justicehas occurred, or will occur, if the appeal is not heard. The proposed appealinvolves the application of well-settled law. The courts have consistently heldthat challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament, and validity of Acts ofParliament (whether in the context of Māori sovereignty arguments, or anyother challenge to the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament) cannotsucceed.[4] The paradox underlying Mr Brooker's intended appeal — his invocation of thewholly statutory jurisdiction of this Court to have it declare another Act of Parliamentunlawful — went unresolved.1 R v Brooker [2017] NZDC 10200.2 Brooker v Police [2017] NZHC 2658.3 Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436.4 The proclamation declared that full sovereignty over New Zealand vests in the British Crown.5 Brooker v R, above n 3 (footnote omitted).Result[5] Mr Brooker's application for leave to appeal was filed two weeks out of time.There being no objection, we grant an extension of time.[6] Mr Brooker's proposed appeal is not arguable and his application for leave toappeal is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent