JAMES v THE CORPORATION NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 462

JAMES v THE CORPORATION NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 462 [15 March 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGANUI REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHANGANUI ROHECIV-2019-483-1[2019] NZHC 462UNDER Authorised Version of the King James Bible,Common Law Jurisdiction / The Law of theLand, Magna Carta 1297, New Zealand Billof Rights Act 1990IN THE MATTER OF Judicial ReviewCRN: 1508310118015083101181, 15083101182POLICE v JONESBETWEEN JAMESClaimantAND THE CORPORATION NEW ZEALANDPOLICEWrongdoerHearing: On the papersJudgment: 15 March 2019JUDGMENT OF COOKE J[1] This proceeding been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the HighCourt Rules 2016 so that I may consider exercising the power under r 5.35B(2)(a) tostrike it out on the basis that it is plainly abusive.[2] Having considered the proceeding, and the materials that have been filed bythe claimant, I have concluded the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process of theCourt and that it should be struck out. These are the reasons for my decision.Factual background[3] Although the full factual background to the matter is not apparent from thedocumentation that the claimant has filed, the essential nature of the underlying eventsand the claims are reasonably clear.[4] The starting point appears to be that infringement notices were issued to theclaimant by the Police under the authority of the Land Transport Act 1998. Theclaimant himself describes the circumstances in one of the documents filed by him inthe following way:The· IncidentI was stopped by a Police Constable, on Gonville Avenue, Wanganui, foroperating a vehicle without registration and for failing to produce a Driver'sLicense;I was asked to identify myself to which I gave the name James. The constablewanted a "Family name" but I said that I do not have one as I am James, son-of James.The constable was cautioned that a Claim Of Right existed and was given acopy of said Claim Of Right to peruse.It was after that, I was presented with the Infringement Notice which containsthe details of the artificial person [legal fiction] James JONES DoB 8 January1951 of 11 8 Ikitara Road.[5] The infringement notice covered two offences — using an unregistered motorvehicle (for which an infringement fee of $100 was payable) and the failure to producea driver's licence (for which a fee of $55 was payable).[6] The reference to the Claim Of Right appears to be reference to a document thatis amongst the materials filed with the Court which, over 14 pages, appears to advancean argument that the Crown has no jurisdiction in relation to such matters. It states,inter alia:65. That anyone, their principals or their agents who interfere with mylawful activities after having been served notice of this Claim of Rightand who fail to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim isbreaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and thatsuch transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court dejure, and;66. That the courts of New Zealand are de facto and are in fact a profitablebusiness of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions ofsecurity interests and I further claim that they require the consent ofboth parties prior to providing any such services, and;67. That my consent to perform on any statutory obligation can only begranted by a written, signed and notarised document, and;68. That I do hereby deny consent to any transactions of a security interestissued under any Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land Iam not subject to any Act, and;69. The unlimited right to travel freely and unmolested throughout thegeographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand, the UnitedKingdom and the Commonwealth realms and that evidenced perfectionof this Claim will act as sufficient documentation for entry and travel toand on the geographical area commonly referred to as New Zealand,the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms, and;[7] The documents made available are a little unclear to the extent that there mayhave been at least one more alleged infringement, described as relating to "no evidenceof inspection", and possibly two other infringements in relation to operating anunlicensed motor vehicle and failure to produce a driver's licence. Nevertheless,whatever the correct position is, a court procedure seems to have been followed andcourt fines issued. There is also reference to actions taken by bailiffs to enforce thefines, and to the existence of attachment orders.[8] Amongst the documentation are numerous letters written by the claimantprotesting against these actions, including letters to the Commissioner of Police, theMinister of Justice and others.[9] The claimant now seeks to advance his complaints by way of this judicialreview proceeding. A statement of claim has been filed accompanied by an affidavitfrom the claimant. Although the statement of claim is not very clear, it neverthelessseeks an order declaring his convictions void, requiring property taken from him underan attachment order to be returned, together with damages and costs.[10] The proceeding was initially referred to Clark J for consideration underr 5.35B. She directed that further information be provided by the claimant in relationto the underlying infringement offences and other details. By letter dated 17 February2019 the claimant has duly provided further information in response to thosequestions.Jurisdiction[11] Rule 5.35A provides:5.35A Registrar may refer plainly abusive proceeding to Judge beforeservice(1) This rule applies if a Registrar believes that, on the face of a proceedingtendered for filing, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of the process ofthe court.(2) The Registrar must accept the proceeding for filing if it meets theformal requirements for documents set out in rules 5.3 to 5.16.(3) However, the Registrar may,—(a) as soon as practicable after accepting the proceeding for filing,refer it to a Judge for consideration under rule 5.35B; and(b) until a Judge has considered the proceeding under that rule,decline to sign and release the notice of proceeding and attachedmemorandum for the plaintiff or the applicant (as appropriate) toserve the proceeding.[12] Rule 5.35B also provides:5.35B Judge's powers to make orders and give directions before service(1) This rule applies if a Judge to whom a Registrar refers a proceedingunder rule 5.35A is satisfied that the proceeding is plainly an abuse ofthe process of the court.(2) The Judge may, on his or her own initiative, make an order or givedirections to ensure that the proceeding is disposed of or, as the casemay be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including(without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that—(a) the proceeding be struck out:(b) the proceeding be stayed until further order:(c) documents for service be kept by the court and not be served untilthe stay is lifted:(d) no application to lift the stay be heard until the person who filedthe proceeding files further documents as specified in the order(for example, an amended statement of claim or particulars ofclaim).(3) Rule 7.43(3) does not apply. However, if a Judge makes an order on theJudge's own initiative without giving the person who filed theproceeding an opportunity to be heard, the order must contain astatement of that person's right to appeal against the decision.(4) A copy of a Judge's decision to strike out a proceeding must, ifpracticable, also be served on the person named as a party or, if morethan 1 person is named, those persons named as parties to theproceeding.(5) See rule 2.1(3)(b) concerning the exclusion of the jurisdiction andpowers of a Judge under this rule from the jurisdiction and powers ofan Associate Judge.[13] As a consequence of s 8(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 both ofthese rules apply to a judicial review proceeding. The right to bring judicial review isa fundamental right, recognised by s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.But the right to bring a judicial review proceeding is to do so "in accordance withlaw".[14] The power in the rules is to be exercised sparingly. The Courts have adoptedthe following test:1(a) whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they berequired to respond; and(b) whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercisingvery poor control of its processes for it to follow the applicant'sdocument to be treated as a proper document.[15] It also seems to me that the normal concepts taken into account by the Courtwhen assessing whether a proceeding is an abuse of process inform the test referred toabove.Application of the present case[16] Applying that approach, for three inter-related reasons I conclude that thisproceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.1 Mathieson v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258 at [4]–[7]; and Mathieson v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032 at[6].[17] First, the statement of claim is not in a state that would allow a party to respondto it. It is a discursive document that refers to many sources including the oath givenby the Queen on her Coronation, the Judicial oath, the Nuremburg Trials and a seriesof judicial authorities. It does not advance a coherent judicial review claim that is ableto be addressed within the jurisdiction of the Court. It would be manifestly unfair toexpect a respondent to respond to the document.[18] Secondly, and notwithstanding the lack of clarity, the essential claim seems tochallenge the very jurisdiction of the executive and judicial branches of the Crown toregulate matters such as land transportation, to create infringement notices, or toenforce them before the courts. It appears to be a constitutional challenge. On theface of the document such arguments appear to be untenable. There can be no realisticchallenge to the very authority to enact legislation, promulgate rules and regulationsunder that legislation, or to enforce such laws before the Courts.[19] Finally any arguments to be made about the infringement notices, orsubsequent enforcement action, were able to be advanced by the claimant through thenormal appeal avenues. It is an abuse of process for there to be a collateral attack onthe conclusions of the courts in relation to offences through subsequent judicial reviewproceedings.2[20] For these reasons the proceeding is struck out as plainly an abuse of processunder r 5.35B(2)(a). A copy of this decision should be provided to the claimant by theRegistrar. I record that the claimant has the right to appeal this decision. A copy ofthe judgment should also be served on the respondent.Cooke J2 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 94, [2013] 1NZLR 804 at [22]; and Walker v Nelson District Court [2018] NZHC 1967 at [8].