France v Police [2012] NZHC 3252 (4 December 2012)

Last Updated: 11 December 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2012-404-000187 [2012] NZHC 3252

MALCOLM DANIEL FRANCE

Applicant

v

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: Applicant in Person

A Longdill for Respondent

Judgment: 4 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD

_{[as to application for leave to appeal to Court of Appeal]}

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 11:30 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor (A Longdill) Auckland. Applicant (Mr M D France), Auckland

FRANCE M V NZ POLICE HC AK CRI-2012-404-000187 [4 December 2012]

[1] The applicant was convicted in the District Court on charges of being found in an enclosed area without reasonable excuse and causing wilful damage. The charges related to events on 18 July 2011 when a group of people broke through a gate on the Auckland Harbour Bridge and climbed to the top of the bridge in order to fly the Tino Rangitiratanga flag from the bridge. The group was concerned about the prospect of deep sea drilling in New Zealand waters. Seven people broke through a gate and proceeded on to the arch of the bridge. They were peacefully escorted down from the bridge before being taken to the North Shore Police Centre, where they were charged with these offences.

[2] The applicant’s role was as the driver of a red van, which was recorded dropping off the members of the group at the top of the bridge. While the group on the bridge were being escorted down, others members of the Police located the applicant outside the Swashbucklers Bar in Westhaven. He was spoken to, arrested and also taken to the North Short Police Centre and charged as a party to the offending.

[3] After a defended hearing in the District Court, the applicant was convicted of the two offences as a party to the offending. The applicant was convicted and ordered to come up for sentence if called upon within 12 months on the intentional damage charge. Reparation of $114 was also imposed. On the charge of being in an enclosed space, the District Court Judge sentenced the applicant to 40 hours community service.

[4] The applicant appealed to the High Court under a general right of appeal provided for in s 115 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. At the hearing of the appeal on 23 October 2012, the applicant had a Mr Areta Ransfield with him as a MacKenzie friend. In an oral judgment delivered following the hearing of the appeal, I dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

[5] The applicant now seeks leave of the High Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal under s 144 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. That section allows the High Court to grant leave for such an appeal if, in the opinion of the High Court, the question of law involved is one by reason of its general or public importance or for

any other reason ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. The grounds of the appeal are said to be:

1.1 that though that said judgement has sought to impose said allegations of said offending causing and validating by the said district and high courts my said convictions, paras 1 to 5, it attempting further to prove liability finally also, paras 15 to 18, they are not matters that I can consider as being anything other than erroneously arrived at either; for the further following reasons that

1.2 by the fact of my being in possession, by way of this documentation being copied to a usb drive that I own, that was filed as I was informed by my said mackenzie friend/s having assisted myself as said appellant-litigant in person before the said high court, as said appellants to the said supreme court at Wellington on 15 January

2010, and it having contained within and as part of it applications of

Interim and Permanant Injunction with Summary Judgement of the

2005 general election and other instruments of government or crown as state, this being inclusive of all the said courts and their respective

said jurisdictions as well; and that

1.3 because those injunctions are also able to validate liability as Criminals, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11, the Governor-General as First Second Agent – Dame Sylvia Cartwright, and the Chief Electoral Officer – David Henry as second Second Agent, of a said authority falsely, unlawfully, and, retrospectively gained through the English Laws bill enacted on the 28 May 1858 as the English Laws Act, citing the 14 January 1840 as the beginning of english law across Aotearoa New Zealand, then no legal law can be said to exist then either; and that by this fact,

1.4 persons being now in inlawful possession of the seal of New Zealand being also cited upon WRITS-WARRANTS for their respective arrests, being inclusive again also all said judges of all said judicial jurisdictions; and

1.5 my having cited Queen Elizabeth 11 as Defendant Principal Respondent at Large, Her Majesty being the Vicarious Liability; and Finally,

1.6 because Her Majesty did not appear at my said proceeding, notwithstanding that I had sent to Her Address at Buckingham Palace the application for my said appeal hearing, she clearly not wishing to oppose that application; then

1.7 I was enabled, and should have been granted such, that in Her Absence, Judgement was able to be said entered and granted in and to my favour;

1.8 comments having been made by the said judge Woolford j in respect of matters earlier litigated by my said Mackenzie friend – Areta Ransfield, paras 12 to 14, becoming irrelevant by the fact that they are matters before the supreme court by way of said appeal to that said highest jurisdiction, and are therefore no longer able to be

decided in any lower said jurisdiction to it, any such attempt being further enabled to be hereby invalidated in regard to they made finally, also.

1.9 For the above reasons, I seek the relief of the said grant of the said order, that I am granted said special leave from this said high court to file to the said court of appeal, a said appeal from the said judgement of Woolford j in said cri-2012-404-000187 – [2012] nzhc

2780, of the 23 October 2012, upon the fact that where they have been above enabled to be disputed by me to the extent they have, that it is therefore erroneous in all its findings having brought it to its conclusion arrived at resulting in my said appeal having been dismissed.

[6] In the application for leave, the applicant repeats the submissions he made in the High Court. The applicant’s submissions, in effect, challenge the jurisdiction of the Courts. In my judgment of 23 October 2012, I made reference to two cases in which similar points taken by the applicant’s MacKenzie friend were rejected. They are the High Court decision of Ransfield v Police[1] in which Dobson J addressed and dismissed the points made by the applicant’s MacKenzie friend. Special leave to appeal Dobson J’s decision was sought but that leave was declined by the Court of Appeal in the case reported as Ransfield v Police.[2]

[7] I am therefore of the view that the jurisdictional point argued by the applicant has been considered previously by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and has been determined to be without merit.

[8] I therefore cannot find any question of law which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to the Court of Appeal for decision. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal is declined.

.....................................

_{Woolford J}

---

[1] _{Ransfield v Police HC Whangarei CRI-2008-488-014, 21 November 2008.}
[2] Ransfield v Police [2009] NZCA 460.