MAIN v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1828

MAIN v POLICE [2018] NZHC 1828 [15 October 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECRI-2018-419-47[2018] NZHC 1828BETWEEN MICHAEL RAYMOND MAINApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 12 October 2018Appearances: Applicant in personS F Gilbert for RespondentJudgment: 15 October 2018JUDGMENT OF BREWER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 15 October 2018 at 11:00 ampursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Almao Douch (Hamilton) for RespondentIntroduction[1] Mr Main seeks leave to bring a second appeal against findings by a CommunityMagistrate1 that he is liable under infringement notices issued for the followingoffences:(a) Operates a vehicle without displaying current evidence of vehicleinspection;2(b) Failing to produce his driver licence for inspection without delay whenrequired;3(c) Operating a vehicle displaying a registration that is not authorised to beaffixed under Part 17 of the Act.4Facts[2] The prosecution case was that on 20 November 2017, Mr Main was driving aHolden Commodore motor vehicle on Heaphy Terrace, Hamilton. He was stopped bya police officer who had observed that the font of the car's registration plates did notconform to the standard form. The evidence of Constable Ross was:(a) The registration number plate on the vehicle, 033TTW, did not exist asa valid number when he searched for it using his mobility device;(b) The registration number plate that should have been on the car, basedon the VIN number, was BNY883;(c) The Holden Commodore did not display a current warrant of fitness norregistration;1 Police v Main DC Hamilton CRI-2017-019-8526, 22 June 2018.2 Land Transport Act 1998, s 34(1)(b).3 Land Transport Act 1998, s 31(1)(c).4 Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011, regs 85(1)(a) and93.(d) The vehicle had previously been 'green stickered' or issued with a non-operational order by another police officer; and(e) The driver licence that Mr Main showed Constable Ross was not a validNew Zealand driver's licence. It was a piece of paper with a name onit and other writing in "Māori".[3] Mr Main appealed the Community Magistrate's decision to the District Court.Judge AS Menzies dismissed Mr Main's appeal in a reserved judgment dated 3 August2018.5 The Judge explained:[9] I have now reviewed in greater detail the material provided byMr Main both at the time of filing the appeal and at the hearing of the appeal.It is clear from that material and Mr Main's oral submissions that the appealis not directed towards the merits of the decision either in terms of theconviction or the fines imposed. Rather the entire focus of the appeal is achallenge to the jurisdiction of the Court over Mr Main. Given his positionthat there is no such jurisdiction, he argues the convictions and penalties areof no effect and he invites the Court to dismiss them accordingly.[4] The grounds for Mr Main's position could all be boiled down to the argumentthat the Court does not have jurisdiction over him because of his status as Māori.Judge Menzies applied the law binding on him as contained within statutes passed bythe New Zealand Parliament, as well as decisions from the higher Courts. His Honourdismissed the appeal.Application for leave[5] Whether Mr Main can bring a second appeal in this Court depends uponwhether he can satisfy s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. This provides:237 Right of appeal against determination of first appeal court(1) A convicted person may, with the leave of the second appeal court,appeal to that court against the determination of the person's firstappeal under this subpart.(2) The High Court or the Court of Appeal must not give leave for asecond appeal under this subpart unless satisfied that—5 Main v Police [2018] NZDC 15859.(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance;or(b) a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occurunless the appeal is heard[6] Mr Main represented himself before me, as I understand he did before theCommunity Magistrate and before Judge Menzies. He brought with him to my Courta gentleman, whose name I did not catch but who was described as a Native Assessorpresent to ensure a proper record. I allowed the gentleman to be seated besideMr Main and to act as a McKenzie Friend. It soon became apparent that Mr Main wasalmost entirely dependent on the verbal promptings of this gentleman for hissubmissions.[7] I explained to Mr Main that this was not the hearing of his appeal to this Courtbut an application for leave to bring a second appeal. I explained the two matters hehad to satisfy me on.[8] On the first ground, whether there is a matter of general or public importance,it is clear Mr Main wishes to argue aspects of the contention that the laws of theParliament of New Zealand do not bind Māori. Thrown into the mix are the familiararguments of those who contend there is a difference between a person in the flesh andsome other entity, which Mr Main largely referred to as a constructive trust. He saidit is a matter of general or public importance that we do away with all the assumptionsof the Court in this regard.[9] On the need for a miscarriage of justice to be pointed to, Mr Main eventuallyclarified that s 4 of the Native Rights Act 1865 was not given effect to and thiscascades into breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.[10] Mr Main then referred to a miscarriage of justice arising from a matter of non-disclosure. I had noted in my preliminary reading of the materials filed in the Courtthat an issue for the Community Magistrate and for Judge Menzies had been whetherthe prosecution had served on Mr Main the disclosure documents to which he wasentitled under the law. I do not need to go into this matter any further because of theargument Mr Main advanced and to which I will refer shortly. I point out that I hadformed the preliminary view that Judge Menzies's discussion of this point seemed tobe quite correct and that, despite initial difficulties, Mr Main had received disclosure.Further, on the arguments he advanced – which had nothing to do with the merits –there could be no miscarriage of justice arising from belated discovery.[11] The point became moot in this context because Mr Main made it clear to methat the non-disclosure of which he complains, and on which he would bring his appealif allowed, is that the prosecution did not disclose evidence of extinguishment of nativetitle and rights over the area where the alleged offences occurred. This failure led toother grounds for miscarriage including breach of his right to a fair and impartialtribunal and an overall abuse of process.[12] I attempted to call on Ms Gilbert for the Crown to respond to Mr Main'sargument. However, Mr Main, at the prompting of the gentleman assisting him, saidthat Ms Gilbert represents a make-believe Crown, has no standing, and, due to theabsence of disclosure, any statement by her would provide grounds for a furtherappeal. I told Mr Main I would not call on Ms Gilbert to speak, not because I acceptedhis points but because, having heard his arguments, I did not see that anythingMs Gilbert might say would assist me materially.Decision[13] Mr Main has not satisfied the prerequisites for leave to bring a second appeal.There is no matter of general or public importance. The law is well established thatthe Parliament of New Zealand makes laws which bind everybody in New Zealand.The Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration andLicensing) Regulations 2011 apply to everyone in New Zealand regardless of race.[14] There is no miscarriage of justice. The evidence establishing the infringementswas straightforward and virtually uncontested. Mr Main's arguments all go towhether, because he is Māori, he is subject to the law of New Zealand.[15] Leave to appeal is denied.________________________________Brewer J