Ingram v Police [2014] NZHC 1200 (30 May 2014)

High Court of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

---

Ingram v Police [2014] NZHC 1200 (30 May 2014)

Last Updated: 10 June 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-10 [2014] NZHC 1200

BETWEEN	GUY TE HURINUI APANUI INGRAM Appellant
AND	POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	30 May 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in Person N Tehana for Respondent
Judgment:	30 May 2014

_{JUDGMENT OF COOPER J}

Solicitors:

Gordon Pilditch, Crown Solicitors, Rotorua

Copy to:

G Te H A Ingram, 21 Ashwell Crescent, RD 2, Taupiri 3792

INGRAM v POLICE [2014] NZHC 1200 [30 May 2014]

[1] Following an appeal in the District Court the appellant was convicted and fined on various charges that had been laid under the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Regulations.

[2] He now appeals against his conviction and sentence and he says that the

Judge “failed to produce facts and law”.

[3] In the course of his decision convicting the appellant Judge McGuire found that he had operated a motor vehicle and that the vehicle was not licensed in accordance with Part 17 of the Land Transport Act 1998, that he operated a vehicle on a road when that vehicle was not displaying current evidence of vehicle inspection and that he drove a vehicle that had been ordered off the road. I do not understand those findings to be disputed by the appellant on the appeal. Rather, the argument put forward is that none of the laws of which he has been found to be in breach has been competently made by the New Zealand Parliament or, if they have been they cannot affect his status as a sovereign and, indeed, as a person who is entitled to sovereign immunity.

[4] This is to raise arguments in this Court that have been time and again rejected by this Court and by the Court of Appeal. The appellant understands, I think, that the Court of Appeal’s decisions are binding on me. I refer just as two examples to the decisions of the Court of Appeal in R v Toia¹ and Phillips v R.² In the first, there is a summary of the reasons why provisions in enactments of Parliament must be enforced by the Courts:³

[10] We are satisfied that the appellant’s argument on this point must be

dismissed. In summary:

(a) The crimes with which the appellant was charged are all under the Crimes Act 1961 which, in terms of s 5, applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand and to all acts done or omitted in New Zealand.

(b) The Crimes Act 1961 was enacted by the New Zealand

_{Parliament which has sovereign power to legislate: Berkett v}

¹ _{R v Toia [2007] NZCA 331.}

² _{Phillips v R [2013] NZHC 644.}

³ Above n 1 at [10].

Tauranga District Court [1992] 3 NZLR 206 at 212 – 213 (HC); R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998; Ngä Uri O Te Ngahue v Wellington City Council CA470/03 18 February

2004; R v McKinnon CA240/04 4 May 2005; and R v

Harawira CA180/05 1 August 2005.

(c) This Court’s duty is to apply enactments of the legislature: Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] UKPC 6; [1941] AC 308 (PC) and New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 690 (CA).

...

[5] Phillips v R⁴ was a case that also involved the Land Transport Act. In rejecting an application for leave to appeal the Court described the arguments that had been presented in support of the application for leave to appeal as compositely reducing to the point that the Land Transport Act and later legislation enacted by Parliament do not apply to people of Maori heritage. That is an argument very similar to those that the appellant has raised in this case. As in that case, “[h]is argument is to the effect that he is subject only to Tikanga Maori or customary law and thus the District Court had no jurisdiction to determine the charge”.

[6] The Court rejected the argument in the following passage:⁵

Mr Phillips’ application does not raise an arguable question of law, let alone one which by reason of its general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to this Court for determination. The legal foundation for his argument has been considered and rejected by this Court and also, significantly, by the Supreme Court as plainly unarguable. The leading decisions affirm that Parliament is sovereign and its legislation applies to all New Zealanders irrespective of race. Thus New Zealand Courts are bound to accept the validity of all statutory enactments including the Land Transport Act, which as Ms Wong submits applies without limitation based on ownership, title or status of land and to all “roads” as defined by s 2. It is unarguable that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge against Mr Phillips.

(Footnotes omitted.)

[7] These decisions of the Court of Appeal mean that the present appeal cannot succeed and it is dismissed accordingly.

⁴ _{Above n 2.}

⁵ At [3].