Dickie v Police

[2012] NZHC 3419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CRI 2012-488-54 [2012] NZHC 3419

BETWEEN  ADRIAN DICKIE Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         14 December 2012

Counsel:         A Dickie, Appellant in person

D B Stevens for Respondent

Judgment:      14 December 2012

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2012 at 4.30pm pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, PO Box 146, Whangarei
Copy to:

Mr A Dickie, Appellant in person

DICKIE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC WHA CRI 2012-488-54 [14 December 2012]

[1]      Mr Dickie appeals against a decision of two Justices of the peace, given in the District Court at Whangarei on 19 July 2012.   Mr Dickie was ordered to pay fines,[1] on a number of traffic charges.  Having regard to the points taken on appeal, it is unnecessary to go into the detail of the charges or the fines imposed.

[1] Police v Dickie DC Whangarei CRI 2012-488-088922, 19 July 2012 (S MacLucas JP and F Colthurst JP).

[2]      Mr Dickie submits that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to deal with his case.  In his Notice of Appeal, he states that “the legislation that was used against [him] is fraudulent as is the Court that processed it”.  As expressed in the notice of appeal, that view is based on a contention that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not lawfully Queen in the right of New Zealand and therefore Parliament has no power to pass legislation; nor do the Courts have power to enforce it.

[3]      Mr Dickie made submissions at the hearing today, on a more nuanced basis. He contends that, because he stands in “Inherent-Right Jurisdiction” there was no evidence of any conduct on his part that justified the prosecution or the sanctions imposed.

[4]      However   expressed,   Mr   Dickie’s   submissions   challenge   the   right   of Parliament to legislate. A similar argument was advanced by Mr Dickie before Allan J earlier this year.  On that occasion, Mr Dickie also challenged fines imposed in the District  Court.    Allan J  rejected  Mr  Dickie’s  challenge  to  the  sovereignty  of Parliament and to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts,[2] citing the decision of

the Court of Appeal in Phillips v R.[3]

[2] Dickie v Police [2012] NZHC 233.

[3] Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225 at para [9].

[5]      I echo Allan J’s observations.  To them I add a reference to my own judgment in R v Mason, in which it was contended, unsuccessfully, that a Maori accused was entitled to be tried in accordance with tikanga Maori.[4]   I mention that judgment even though I accept that Mr Dickie’s appeal was not based on a “Maori Sovereignty”

issue.

[4] R v Mason [2012] 2 NZLR 695 (HC) at paras [32]–[34], with reference to Barrett v Police HC Hamilton CRI 2003-419-64, 14 June 2004 (Randerson J). See also Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.

[6]      As  this  is  the  second  occasion  on  which  Mr  Dickie  has  advanced  this argument unsuccessfully this year, Mr Stevens, for the Police, seeks costs.  While I make no order as to costs on this occasion Mr Dickie is on notice that any further appeals on such grounds are likely to be dismissed with orders for costs against him.

[7]      Mr Dickie’s submissions are misconceived. The appeal is dismissed.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 4.30pm on 14 December 2012