Lockett v Police [2012] NZHC 2586 (5 October 2012)

Last Updated: 17 October 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-000273 [2012] NZHC 2586

BETWEEN JAMIE BEATTIE LOCKETT Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 5 October 2012

Appearances: No appearance by Appellant

AR Longdill for Respondent

Judgment: 5 October 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J DISMISSING APPEAL

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland [e-mail]

Copy to: J B Lockett, Floor 1, 35 High Street, Auckland Central, Auckland 1010

LOCKETT V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-000273 [5 October 2012]

[1] The appellant was charged that on 12 October 2011 he intimidated a security officer working at the Auckland District Court. He was also charged on the same date that, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he had with him in a public place, namely the Auckland District Court, an offensive weapon. He was convicted on both counts following a defended hearing on 13 August this year.

[2] He was sentenced to 60 hours of community work to be served concurrently.

[3] On 17 August the appellant lodged an appeal with this Court. He gave 1,35

High Street Auckland as the address for service. Notice of this morning’s callover of

criminal appeals was provided to him care of that address by notice dated 24

September 2012.

[4] There has been no appearance by Mr Lockett to support the appeal. [5] The notice of appeal sets out as grounds of the appeal:

The matter I am placing refers to an offensive weapon and Intimidation.

My Constitutional concern is that when in court the only reference heralding jurisdiction applied was the coat of arms which was visible on,

1) the police uniform

2) documents requiring I attend Court

3) on entering the court above the doors

4) behind the Judge

Subject to the Constitution of the land and Monarch I am a living breathing man created by GOD, Queen Elizabeth II swore Oath to;

Defend the faith

The flag in the Coat of Arms deplicits [sic] the 12 June 1902 flag. As no founding documents were signed on that day formalising jurisdiction, please

evidence what lawful jurisdiction is being applied. I grant you the period of

Grace after one working day from receipt of this letter to provide jurisdiction and for the Judge to sign wet ink to it, failure to do so in time is admitance [sic] for appeal to the Governor General.

[6] The grounds listed by the appellant are nonsensical and do not provide any basis upon which an appeal could be pursued before this Court.

[7] Given the non-appearance and the lack of any legal merit in the proposed

_{grounds of appeal, the appeal is dismissed.}

Venning J