HONANA v NZ POLICE [2020] NZHC 3244

HONANA v NZ POLICE [2020] NZHC 3244 [11 December 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECRI-2020-463-121[2020] NZHC 3244BETWEEN JAMES HONANAAppellantAND NZ POLICERespondentHearing: 8 December 2020Appearances: Appellant in person supported by Te Awhi o Rangi as McKenzieFriendG Banuelos for the NZ PoliceJudgment: 11 December 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL JThis judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2020 at 3.30 pmRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] The appellant, James Honana, has appealed a decision of Judge G C Hollister-Jones in the District Court at Tokoroa. Judge Hollister-Jones found Mr Honana guiltyof failing to answer bail and of driving with excess breath alcohol on a third orsubsequent occasion on the basis that Mr Honana did not dispute the charges. Instead,as Judge Hollister-Jones noted in his decision:1Mr Honana reiterated that his issue was one of sovereignty and that he wantedthe Court to determine the case on that basis. I asked Mr Honana for anywritten material and the prosecutor helpfully found the statement dated 13August. Mr Honana confirmed that that is the statement that he wanted me toconsider. Mr Honana had no supplementary submissions.In summary, the document asserts:(a) that there was going to be a disciplinary hui on 13 September 2020 atthe Korohe Marae at Turangi and that his behaviour would beconsidered on a tikanga basis; and(b) that he is not subject to the New Zealand law and he does not acceptthe jurisdiction of the Court. In particular at paragraph 10, Mr Honanastates that the Land Transport Act does not apply to him and theWhakaputanga o Nga Rangatira 1835 gives a higher status ofauthority over the New Zealand Police.Mr Honana asks the Court to dismiss the charge and alternatively seeks that ahigher court determine the matter.[2] Judge Hollister-Jones explained to Mr Honana that the Land Transport Actapplied to him and that His Honour was unable to deal with the case on the sovereigntybasis requested by Mr Honana.2 Instead, noting that Mr Honana accepted the elementsof each charge Judge Hollister-Jones proceeded to convict and discharge Mr Honanaon the bail matter, and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver's licencefor 12 months, as well as imposing a fine of $750 on the driving with excess breathalcohol charge.3[3] Mr Honana has now appealed against Judge Hollister-Jones' decision on thebasis he is a "sovereign living man". It was difficult to follow Mr Honana's argument.In a procedural direction issued prior to the hearing of the appeal Lang J had confirmedwritten submissions did not have to be filed in advance of the hearing and Mr Honana1 Police v Honana [2020] NZDC 20846 at [9]-[11].2 At [12]-[14].3 At [15]-[18].had apparently interpreted this as meaning that submissions did not have to beprepared at all. Despite this Mr Honana has referred to: He Whakaputanga o o teRangatiratanga o Nu Tireni 1835; an article apparently referring to motor travel withinthe US states; the admiralty jurisdiction of the English courts within the territorialwaters of New Zealand; and the Creation (in a biblical sense) to support his argumentthat the New Zealand courts do not have jurisdiction over him.Discussion[4] I have heard what Mr Honana has to say and taken what he has said seriously.However, like Judge Hollister-Jones, I am unable to determine the appeal on the basisMr Honana has sought. Instead, the position as far as this Court is concerned is thatthe types of matters raised by Mr Honana have been consistently found by the Courtsof New Zealand as not providing any basis for a plea that the District Court had nojurisdiction to hear the charges, or otherwise provide a basis that would enable me toallow the appeal. In particular, the recent decision of Cull J in Larsen v Police4considered in some detail the types of issues that Mr Honana seemed to be raising, andI respectfully adopt her Honour's reasoning in that case to the effect that there is nomerit whatsoever in the issues raised.5[5] Instead, Mr Honana's appeal is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011("CPA"). Section 229(1) of the CPA allows a person to appeal against their convictionto the High Court with s 232 providing that an appeal against conviction must beallowed if in the case of a Judge alone trial the trial Judge erred in his or her assessmentof the evidence to such an extent a miscarriage of justice has occurred or a miscarriageof justice has occurred for any other reason. In any other case the appeal has to bedismissed. Likewise, s 250(2) of the CPA provides that a Court must allow an appealagainst sentence if satisfied that for any reason, there is an error in the sentenceimposed, and a different sentence should be imposed. In any other case, the Courtmust dismiss his appeal.64 Larsen v Police [2020] NZHC 2520.5 See in particular [19]-[23].6 Section 250(3).[6] Turning first to the convictions, it is clear from the transcript of the Judge alonetrial before Judge Hollister-Jones that Mr Honana accepted the charges against himand on that basis there can be no suggestion these convictions amounted to amiscarriage of justice.[7] With regard to sentence, I note that on the charge of failing to appear MrHonana was convicted and discharged, and as no discharge without conviction wassought by Mr Honana there was no other lesser sentence available to his Honour. Itcannot therefore be submitted the sentence was manifestly excessive. Likewise, on thecharge of driving with excess breath alcohol on a third or subsequent occasion MrHonana was disqualified for one year and one day. Section 56(4) of the LandTransport Act provides that in the case of a third or subsequent offence it is mandatoryto impose a period of disqualification of more than one year, and allows for theimposition of a fine of up to $6,000. Accordingly, Judge Hollister-Jones imposed theminimum disqualification period available to him under the relevant law. Similarly,the $750 fine imposed is minimal and clearly no more than necessary to holdMr Honana accountable.[8] Taking these various matters together it is clear Mr Honana's appeal cannotsucceed on any basis.Decision[9] The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed._______________________________Powell J