TE MONI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 549

TE MONI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 549 [21 March 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2023-404-000014[2023] NZHC 549BETWEEN WIMARUKI DION DARRIN TE MONIAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICE &AUCKLAND TRANSPORTRespondentsHearing: On the papersJudgment: 21 March 2023JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JThis judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 11 am.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Manukau.KC England, Auckland Transport.Copy to: Appellant.[1] On 10 January 2023, Wimaruki Te Moni filed an appeal in relation to a decisionof the District Court declining to review alleged irregularities in connection withinfringement offences.[2] Mr Te Moni committed approximately 24 such offences between August 2018and October 2022. Some of the infringement offences were issued by Police, the rest,Auckland Transport.[3] At callover on 24 February 2023, the respondents questioned whetherjurisdiction existed for an appeal. Edwards J held this should be determined, as apreliminary question, on the papers. The Judge directed Mr Te Moni and respondentsto file submissions. They have done so.[4] Mr Te Moni contends jurisdiction exists for an appeal by s 237 of theCriminal Procedure Act 2011. This provision is concerned with appeals againstconviction, and an infringement offence does not result in a conviction. It followss 237 affords no jurisdiction.[5] The respondents identify a suite of cases which hold the High Court does nothave jurisdiction in this context.1 These include a decision of the Court of Appeal,Underhill v R. In that case, the Court said:2Both Simon France and Gilbert JJ considered that this Court has nojurisdiction to entertain the second appeal Mr Underhill seeks to bring.Simon France J explained the position in this way:I conclude by observing that I do not consider there was in any eventjurisdiction for this appeal. ... There is considerable authority confirmingthat a review decision of this sort is neither appealable under the generalconviction appeal provision (s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act1957), HC appeal, above n 2, at [10]. nor under s 72 of the District CourtsAct 1947 (which is limited to civil matters).We agree. As this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal Mr Underhillseeks to bring, Gilbert J correctly refused leave.1 Underhill v Police [2014] NZHC 1367, Drew v District Court at Porirua [2014] NZHC 1678, andRafiq v Auckland Transport [2022] NZHC 3552.2 Underhill v R [2015] NZCA 116 at [8]–[9] (footnotes omitted).[6] Mr Te Moni also contends jurisdiction exists by s 124 of the District Court Act2016. This provision is the successor to s 72 of the District Courts Act 1947, and aswill be apparent from Underhill, s 72 was expressly rejected by the Court of Appealas providing jurisdiction. The same must be true of s 124, which is in the same termsas s 72. Gault J reached exactly this conclusion in Rafiq v Auckland Transport:3Section 72 of the District Courts Act 1947 referred to in Underhill has alsobeen repealed. However, the current provision, s 124 of the District Court Act2016, similarly has no application in relation to an appeal against a DistrictCourt Judge's review decision under s 106F of the SPA.[7] For completeness, Mr Te Moni does not deny committing the infringementoffences. Rather, his case is that the infringement offence regime does not apply toMāori, as Parliament had no authority to enact the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, orfor that matter, any other legislation affecting Māori.[8] This argument could not succeed as a matter of law.Result[9] The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction...Downs J3 Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2022] NZHC 3552 at [33].