Boles v Police

[2017] NZHC 1251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000074 [2017] NZHC 1251

BETWEEN

RICHARD THOMAS BOLES

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2017
Appearances:	Appellant in person J E Tarrant for Respondent
Judgment:	9 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney

on 9 June 2017 at …….

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

BOLES v NZ POLICE [2017] NZHC 1251 [8 June 2017]

[1]      Richard Boles was found guilty in the Te Kuiti District Court following a judge alone trial before Judge Cocurullo on 21 November 2016 on charges of cultivating cannabis, possessing cannabis for supply and possessing cannabis seeds.1

He was sentenced in the Hamilton District Court on 15 February 2017 to a total of two years six months’ imprisonment.2     The matter came before me as an appeal against conviction.   Having heard from Mr Boles, who appeared in person, I dismissed the appeal with these reasons to follow.

[2]      A notice of appeal was filed on 29 November 2016, prior to the sentencing. As a result, Mr Boles required leave to appeal out of time.3    Ms Tarrant, for the Crown, did not oppose leave being given and the hearing proceeded on the basis of leave having been given.

[3]      The notice of appeal cited the following ground:

Ground 8, Judge & Prosecutor failed to rebut the TE KOOTI RANGATIRA ATEHA TE TURE WHENUA MARAE Determination, and the MANDAMS WRIT TORT UNDER instruments Docked as Receiptal/Received by the Hamilton District Court Registry dated 11/11/16, which substantiates that Verdict does not agree with Weight of Evidence.

Refer to the 23 Grounds attached Exhibit “A”. (sic)

[4]      The attached schedule “A” contained 23 points, many of which overlap and can broadly be summarised as being (1) lack of proof that the man standing in the dock was the named defendant Richard Boles  (2) cultivating and possession of cannabis is not unlawful (3) the District Court had no territorial jurisdiction over members of the Nga Uri Whakatipurangao Ngati Maniapoto.

[5]      Mr Boles did not file submissions in advance of the hearing.  When I asked him whether he wished to make submissions he told me that it would pointless to advance the appeal because he did not think that anything could be done.  He went on, in answer to my questions, to say that he had not filed the notice of appeal but

thought that a Maori assessor had done so.  He may or may not have signed it but did

1      Police v Boles [2016] NZDC 23587.

2      Police v Boles [2017] NZDC 2887.

3      Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 231(2); R v Rata [2007] NZCA 341.

not recall.  He was firm that the notice of appeal was not filed at his request and on his behalf.

[6]      In these circumstances, the only proper course is to dismiss the appeal.  For completeness, however, I note that the grounds signalled in the notice of appeal could not have succeeded in any event.   It is well established that New Zealand courts have jurisdiction over people in New Zealand and must apply the law as Parliament has made it.  It is for Parliament, not the courts, to address issues of the

kind being raised.4

P Courtney J

4      R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004; Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225; Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]; Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].