MICHAEL MAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZSC 55
The application was dismissed because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to quash infringement notices directly; absent a lower court decision against which leave to appeal can be sought under s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Court cannot entertain the applicant's challenge.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZSC 55
- Parties
- Applicant: Michael Main; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 June 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Application (jurisdictional)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction, Infringement Notices, Speeding Offence
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Main
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave Application (jurisdictional)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear a direct challenge to infringement notices without a lower court decision
- 2 Whether the Registrar's referral and procedure under Slavich v R was appropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to quash infringement notices directly; absent a lower court decision against which leave to appeal can be sought under s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the Court cannot entertain the applicant's challenge.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MICHAEL MAIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZSC 55 [12 June 2020]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 41/2020[2020] NZSC 55BETWEEN MICHAEL MAINApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 12 June 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Main filed a document with the Registry headed "Statement of ClaimEx Parte Quash all Infringement Notices numbers, PR3744073, &, PR3743518,Dated, 21/3/2020 As of Right". The infringement notices to which the documentreferred were both issued for driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding the speed limit.The document seeks the quashing of the infringement notices.[2] When the document was filed, the Registrar advised Mr Main that this Courtonly has jurisdiction to consider applications for leave to appeal against decisions oflower courts. There was therefore no jurisdiction to consider Mr Main's document.Unsatisfied with that reply, Mr Main applied for "review" of the Registrar's decision.[3] In accordance with the procedure outlined by this Court in Slavich v R, theRegistrar referred the document filed by Mr Main to a panel of leave judges.1[4] We treat the document filed by Mr Main as an application for leave to appealagainst the infringement notices issued. As we pointed out in an earlier decisionrelating to Mr Main, the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal proceedings is governedby s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.2 Section 71(a) provides that, in relation tocriminal proceedings, this Court's jurisdiction is to determine applications for leave toappeal and appeals authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. In thepresent case there is no lower Court decision against which an application for leave toappeal can be initiated. Mr Main's document therefore asks the Court to do somethingthat it does not have jurisdiction to do.[5] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court does nothave jurisdiction to consider it.1 Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195, (2015) 23 PRNZ 117 at [9].2 Main v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 2 at [4].