Peters v Police [2012] NZHC 2263 (3 September 2012)

Last Updated: 24 September 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-275 [2012] NZHC 2263

BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER JOHN NEALE PETERS Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 3 September 2012

Counsel: Appellant in Person (via teleconference) R Thomson for respondent

Judgment: 3 September 2012

_{(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF KATZ J}

_{Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland – [e-mail]}

_{Copy to: C J N Peters, P O Box 122, Thames 3540}

PETERS V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-275 [3 September 2012]

Introduction

[1] On 2 June 2012 the appellant, Mr Peters, was stopped on State Highway 25 near Kopu, at a routine traffic stop. He was issued an infringement notice for driving a Mazda Ute which had an expired registration label. This is an offence under ss 5(1A) and 5(2) of the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986.

[2] On 13 October 2010 Mr Peters was ordered to pay $200 by the Thames

District Court. Mr Peters did not pay the fine.

[3] A sentence of 40 hours’ community work was eventually substituted in relation to this fine, as well as another outstanding traffic fine, under s 88 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Mr Peters now appeals both the original imposition of the fine for having an expired registration label as well as the subsequent decision to substitute a sentence of community work.

[4] Mr Peters represented himself in this appeal, appearing today via teleconference.

Mr Peters’ arguments

[5] Mr Peters filed a Notice of Appeal to this Court on 10 November 2010. His grounds of appeal are expressed in the following terms:

It is a double take. Cannot be justice, this act is injustice. I have paid in full.

[6] In addition to his Notice of Appeal, Mr Peters has provided the Court with a document headed “Affidavit” which summarises his arguments in both appeals that are before the Court today1 in the following terms:

(a) No accurate identification of juristic persons as defined Black’s 7th

Artificial Persons. Refer exhibit 1 page 2;

(b) As of the law, designed to protect not compel. If this law cannot protect me, the law does not apply to me. There has been no infringement of life, liberty, or property, nor rights of a natural being as such it is my belief it is I Christopher John Neale Peters who is the damaged party, and therefore have every right to seek compensation for the injury, damages. Refer legal maxims 2 and 9;

(c) All are equal under the Law (God’s law – ethical and natural law) Exodus 21:23-25; Lev 24:17-21; Deut 1:17, 19:21, Matt 22:36-40, Luke 10:17; Col 3:25; and

(d) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.

[7] Any arguments to the effect that Mr Peters is not subject to the law cannot succeed, and the courts have consistently rejected such lines of argument.2 Once Parliament has enacted a law it is not for this Court to challenge its validity. However, based on the documents provided to the Court by Mr Peters and his oral submissions, I have identified three arguments which could possibly found a legitimate basis for an appeal:

(a) Is the infringement notice defective because it incorrectly spells Mr

Peters name as “Jon”, instead of “John”?

(b) If the registration has now been brought up to date, does that mean it is no longer necessary to pay the fine?

(c) Did the District Court have proper grounds to substitute an order for community service in place of the fine?

[8] I will address each issue in turn.

Incorrect spelling of Mr Peters’ middle name

[9] Mr Peters has provided the Court with a copy of his birth certificate which establishes that the correct spelling of his middle name is indeed “John” not “Jon.”

[10] Section 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act provides, however, that proceedings are not to be questioned for want of form:

No information, complaint, summons, conviction, sentence, order, bond, warrant, or other document, and no process or proceeding shall be quashed, set aside, or held invalid by any ... Court by reason only of any defect, irregularity, omission, or want of form unless the Court is satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

[11] Mr Peters’ date of birth and address were correct and the notice was properly served on him. I am therefore not satisfied that the misspelling of Mr Peters’ middle name has given rise to a miscarriage of justice in this case.

What is the effect of subsequently bringing the registration of the vehicle up to date?

[12] Section 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act governs the procedure for infringement offences.

[13] Mr Peters can avoid conviction for an infringement offence under s 21(10)(a) if he can prove that the infringement fee was paid within 28 days of the reminder notice. Section 21(12) creates a presumption that the elements of the offence are proved. Accordingly, the onus is on Mr Peters to prove that the fine has been paid.

[14] Mr Peters acknowledged, however, that he has not paid the fine. Rather, his argument is that he subsequently brought his vehicle registration up to date and in those circumstances it is unfair or unjust that the fine should still have to be paid. Legally, however, this does not excuse Mr Peters from paying the original fine for operating a vehicle with an expired registration label.

[15] Accordingly this ground of appeal must also fail.

Imposition of Community Work

[16] A sentence of community work was substituted in place of the fine in this and the other matter that is also before the Court today. Section 88AE(1)(e) of the

Summary Proceedings Act allows a Judge to substitute a sentence of community

work after a consideration of the defendant’s financial capacity.

[17] In correspondence with the Court Mr Peters has made a number of references to his financial difficulties. Accordingly, the Judge in the District Court was justified in substituting a sentence of community work in this case. The relevant order notes that the community work sentence will be cancelled if Mr Peters pays the outstanding fines and Court costs.

Conclusion

_{[18] For the reasons I have outlined above, the appeal is dismissed.}

Katz J