Honana v Police [2020] NZHC 3244 (11 December 2020)

Last Updated: 5 February 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-463-121 [2020] NZHC 3244

BETWEEN	JAMES HONANA Appellant
AND	NZ POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	8 December 2020
Appearances:	Appellant in person supported by Te Awhi o Rangi as McKenzie Friend G Banuelos for the NZ Police
Judgment:	11 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2020 at 3.30 pm Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

HONANA v NZ POLICE [2020] NZHC 3244 [11 December 2020]

• [1] The appellant, James Honana, has appealed a decision of Judge G C Hollister- Jones in the District Court at Tokoroa. Judge Hollister-Jones found Mr Honana guilty of failing to answer bail and of driving with excess breath alcohol on a third or subsequent occasion on the basis that Mr Honana did not dispute the charges. Instead, as Judge Hollister-Jones noted in his decision:¹

Mr Honana reiterated that his issue was one of sovereignty and that he wanted the Court to determine the case on that basis. I asked Mr Honana for any written material and the prosecutor helpfully found the statement dated 13 August. Mr Honana confirmed that that is the statement that he wanted me to consider. Mr Honana had no supplementary submissions.

In summary, the document asserts:

(a) that there was going to be a disciplinary hui on 13 September 2020 at the Korohe Marae at Turangi and that his behaviour would be considered on a tikanga basis; and

(b) that he is not subject to the New Zealand law and he does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court. In particular at paragraph 10, Mr Honana states that the Land Transport Act does not apply to him and the Whakaputanga o Nga Rangatira 1835 gives a higher status of authority over the New Zealand Police.

Mr Honana asks the Court to dismiss the charge and alternatively seeks that a higher court determine the matter.

• [2] Judge Hollister-Jones explained to Mr Honana that the Land Transport Act applied to him and that His Honour was unable to deal with the case on the sovereignty basis requested by Mr Honana.² Instead, noting that Mr Honana accepted the elements of each charge Judge Hollister-Jones proceeded to convict and discharge Mr Honana on the bail matter, and disqualified him from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for 12 months, as well as imposing a fine of $750 on the driving with excess breath alcohol charge.³

• [3] Mr Honana has now appealed against Judge Hollister-Jones’ decision on the basis he is a “sovereign living man”. It was difficult to follow Mr Honana’s argument. In a procedural direction issued prior to the hearing of the appeal Lang J had confirmed written submissions did not have to be filed in advance of the hearing and Mr Honana

¹ Police v Honana [2020] NZDC 20846 at [9]-[11].

² At [12]-[14].

³ At [15]-[18].

had apparently interpreted this as meaning that submissions did not have to be prepared at all. Despite this Mr Honana has referred to: He Whakaputanga o o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni 1835; an article apparently referring to motor travel within the US states; the admiralty jurisdiction of the English courts within the territorial waters of New Zealand; and the Creation (in a biblical sense) to support his argument that the New Zealand courts do not have jurisdiction over him.

Discussion

• [4] I have heard what Mr Honana has to say and taken what he has said seriously. However, like Judge Hollister-Jones, I am unable to determine the appeal on the basis Mr Honana has sought. Instead, the position as far as this Court is concerned is that the types of matters raised by Mr Honana have been consistently found by the Courts of New Zealand as not providing any basis for a plea that the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear the charges, or otherwise provide a basis that would enable me to allow the appeal. In particular, the recent decision of Cull J in Larsen v Police⁴ considered in some detail the types of issues that Mr Honana seemed to be raising, and I respectfully adopt her Honour’s reasoning in that case to the effect that there is no merit whatsoever in the issues raised.⁵

• [5] Instead, Mr Honana’s appeal is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (“CPA”). Section 229(1) of the CPA allows a person to appeal against their conviction to the High Court with s 232 providing that an appeal against conviction must be allowed if in the case of a Judge alone trial the trial Judge erred in his or her assessment of the evidence to such an extent a miscarriage of justice has occurred or a miscarriage of justice has occurred for any other reason. In any other case the appeal has to be dismissed. Likewise, s 250(2) of the CPA provides that a Court must allow an appeal against sentence if satisfied that for any reason, there is an error in the sentence imposed, and a different sentence should be imposed. In any other case, the Court must dismiss his appeal.⁶

⁴ Larsen v Police [2020] NZHC 2520.

⁵ See in particular [19]-[23].

⁶ Section 250(3).

• [6] Turning first to the convictions, it is clear from the transcript of the Judge alone trial before Judge Hollister-Jones that Mr Honana accepted the charges against him and on that basis there can be no suggestion these convictions amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

• [7] With regard to sentence, I note that on the charge of failing to appear Mr Honana was convicted and discharged, and as no discharge without conviction was sought by Mr Honana there was no other lesser sentence available to his Honour. It cannot therefore be submitted the sentence was manifestly excessive. Likewise, on the charge of driving with excess breath alcohol on a third or subsequent occasion Mr Honana was disqualified for one year and one day. Section 56(4) of the Land Transport Act provides that in the case of a third or subsequent offence it is mandatory to impose a period of disqualification of more than one year, and allows for the imposition of a fine of up to $6,000. Accordingly, Judge Hollister-Jones imposed the minimum disqualification period available to him under the relevant law. Similarly, the $750 fine imposed is minimal and clearly no more than necessary to hold Mr Honana accountable.

• [8] Taking these various matters together it is clear Mr Honana’s appeal cannot succeed on any basis.

Decision

• [9] The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Powell J