FRANCE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA112/2013 [2013] NZCA 635

FRANCE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA112/2013 [2013] NZCA 635 [11 December 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA112/2013[2013] NZCA 635BETWEEN MALCOLM DANIEL FRANCEApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Wild, White and Miller JJCounsel: Applicant in PersonR A Hearn for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)11 December 2013 at 10 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Wild J)[1] By application filed on 22 February Mr France applies pursuant to s 144(3) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, for special leave to appeal to this Court.[2] Under s 144(3) this Court may grant special leave if it considers: the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision.[3] Mr France was convicted in the District Court at Auckland on charges of being found in an enclosed area without a reasonable excuse and causing wilful damage. The convictions arose from his part in a protest in July 2011, when a groupof people broke through a gate on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and climbed to the top of an arch of the bridge in order to fly the Tino Rangatiratanga flag. This was in protest at the prospect of deep sea drilling in New Zealand waters. The police peacefully escorted the protestors down from the bridge. Mr France was convicted as a party to the offending. He was the driver of a van which dropped the group off on the bridge.[4] Having convicted Mr France, Judge de Jong ordered him to come up if called upon within 12 months on the intentional damage charge, and also ordered him to pay reparation of $114. On the charge of being in an enclosed space the Judge sentenced Mr France to 40 hours community service.1[5] Mr France appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court against both his conviction and his sentence.2 In his judgment dismissing that appeal Woolford J commented:[6] The appellant's submissions are not easy to understand. As best as Ican determine Mr France appears to challenge the jurisdiction of the District Court in the defended hearing and the jurisdiction of this court on appeal.[6] The Judge then summarised Mr France's submissions as best he could. Thepoints appeared to the Judge to be these:(a) The lack of jurisdiction results from an "injunction" or "WRIT-WARRANT", seemingly against the Judges of all New ZealandCourts, which Mr France appeared to submit had been granted by default.(b) Although Her Majesty the Queen was the respondent to Mr France's appeal, the police had appeared to oppose it. As the police lacked authority to do that, Mr France should have received judgment by default from the High Court.1 New Zealand Police v France DC Auckland CRI-2011-044-5096, 14 May 2012.2 France v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 2780.(c) Mr France did not appear to be directly challenging his conviction as a party to the offending, nor the sentences imposed on him.[7] Woolford J held that the first – injunction – point had been considered and dismissed by Dobson J in Ransfield v Police.3 He quoted these passages fromDobson J's judgment:[7] [Mr Ransfield submitted that he] was immune from arrest and consequently not subject to the jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts because of litigious initiatives he and others have taken previously. He treats those claims as having been made out because they were not opposed by the Crown or others cited as defendants in them. Mr Ransfield considers that he has succeeded for the relief claimed, because the Courts have not declined it.[14] In any event, having had certain papers apparently accepted by the Court of Appeal Registry, in the absence of any formal opposition by the Crown and in the absence of any relief being ordered by the Court of Appeal, Mr Ransfield treats the injunctions applied for in those proceedings as if they are in force. That assertion of relief without Court order is obviously wrong.[8] Woolford J then pointed out that this Court had declined Mr Ransfield special leave to appeal in Ransfield v Police. This Court had observed: 4Mr Ransfield said this Court had injuncted the 2005 election and therefore the operation of the New Zealand government. In fact, it appears he filed a document purporting to seek such an injunction, but it does not appear to have been accepted for filing in this Court. The Court did not grant any such injunction.[9] Woolford J held there was no substance in the second point; the police as the prosecutorial agency which had brought the charges was the proper respondent to Mr France's appeal.[10] Although Mr France had not directly challenged his conviction as a party to the offending, Woolford J dealt with that. He held that Mr France had properly been convicted because he was a party to the offending, within s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.3 Ransfield v Police HC Whangarei CRI-2008-488-014, 21 November 2008.4 Ransfield v Police [2009] NZCA 460 at [8].[11] Mr France applied to the High Court under s 144(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act for leave to appeal to this Court. In declining leave, Woolford J said this:5[6] In the application for leave, the applicant repeats the submissions hemade in the High Court. The applicant's submissions, in effect, challengethe jurisdiction of the Courts. In my judgment of 23 October 2012, I madereference to two cases in which similar points taken by the applicant'sMacKenzie friend were rejected. They are the High Court decision ofRansfield v Police in which Dobson J addressed and dismissed the pointsmade by the applicant's MacKenzie friend. Special leave to appeal DobsonJ's decision was sought but that leave was declined by the Court of Appeal inthe case reported as Ransfield v Police.[7] I am therefore of the view that the jurisdictional point argued by the applicant has been considered previously by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and has been determined to be without merit.[8] I therefore cannot find any question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is declined.(Footnotes omitted.)[12] As best we can understand the somewhat impenetrable grounds set out in Mr France's special leave application, they are exactly the same as those put to the High Court, first on the appeal against conviction and then again in support of the leave application.[13] We agree with Woolford J that the injunction point has already been considered and dismissed by this Court in Ransfield v Police.6[14] The point that Her Majesty the Queen ought to have been in court to respondto Mr France's appeal, rather than the police, has no substance for the reason given by Woolford J.7.[15] There appears also to be a challenge to Her Majesty's sovereignty, on Māori sovereignty grounds. That challenge has been ruled untenable in numerous cases, including by the Supreme Court in Wallace v R.85 France v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 3252.6 Ransfield v Police, above n 3.7 France v New Zealand Police, above n 2, at [14].[16] Mr France has not advanced any question of law meeting the criteria set out in s 144(3). His application for special leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent8 Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.