G v Police HC Auckland CRI 2009-404-115 [2009] NZHC 1825 (23 June 2009)

Last Updated: 17 December 2015

This case has been anonymized

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

_{CRI 2009-404-115}

BETWEEN G

Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 22 June 2009

Appearances: Appellant in person

Nick Whittington for Respondent

Judgment: 23 June 2009

_{JUDGMENT OF HARRISON J}

In accordance with R11.5 I direct that the Registrar endorse this judgment with the delivery time of

_{9:00 am on 23 June 2009}

SOLICITORS

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

_{(copy to Appellant in person)}

G V POLICE HC AK CRI 2009-404-115 23 June 2009

[1] Mr G pleaded guilty in the District Court at Waitakere on

24 March 2009 to one charge of burglary. The Chief District Court Judge, who noted that Mr G had nine or 10 previous burglary convictions, had served 13 previous sentences of imprisonment and was an experienced criminal, nevertheless sentenced him to a term of nine months home detention on certain conditions. He also ordered Mr G to pay reparation of $200 at the rate of $30 per week.

[2] Notwithstanding his plea of guilty, Mr G filed a notice of appeal against conviction and sentence. He lodged a written synopsis in support. It was principally devoted to identifying spelling errors in the caption and charge sheets and in the street number for his home detention residence. He also challenged the grounds upon which the police opposed bail after he was originally arrested, and before conviction.

[3] The relevance of these points or arguments to an appeal against conviction or sentence are not apparent. But it emerged at the hearing today that Mr G disputes some elements of the police summary of facts, in particular that he unbolted a secure fence and forced entry into the building. He did, though, at a later part of his written memorandum appear to acknowledge that he was present with another (who has also pleaded guilty) at the premises when the burglary was committed. Mr G ’ primary new submission, unsupported by evidence, is that he entered his plea of guilty “under duress”, and that the conviction is thus “null and void and of no legal effect”.

[4] As Mr Whittington points out for the Crown, an appeal against conviction after entering a plea of guilty is only allowed in exceptional circumstances where there is proof of a miscarriage of justice: R v Stretch [1982] 1 NZLR 225 (CA). The appropriate course, as I attempted to explain to Mr G , is to instruct counsel to apply for a rehearing. Any application would have to be in writing and supported by affidavit evidence. Mr G made plain his rejection of that advice, apparently at the instance of an unqualified associate. It follows that Mr G has failed to make out an arguable ground for appealing against conviction, and he did not challenge the sentence except to assert that the street number of the home detention residence was wrong.

[5] Mr G separately submits that the Courts have no jurisdiction to hear criminal charges against him. He has provided documents following a well known template based upon what is called “The Declaration of Independence of Aotearoa

1835”. It purports to assert that the Te Ture Whenua Mäori Land Act 1993 excludes this Court’s power to hear a criminal charge against Mr G . The apparent thrust of Mr G ’ submission is that his criminality, if any, is to be determined by others described as assessors.

[6] I agree with Mr Whittington. The Te Ture Whenua Mäori Land Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Courts who have full legal authority over all New Zealand citizens, whether Mäori or Päkehä: see R v Miru CA65/01 26 July 2001 at [8]. Nor can there be any argument that Mäori customary law might assist Mr G : see R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998.

_{[7] Mr G ’ appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.}

Rhys Harrison J