Main v New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 41/2020
[2020] NZSC 55

BETWEEN	MICHAEL MAIN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	12 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Main filed a document with the Registry headed “Statement of Claim Ex Parte Quash all Infringement Notices numbers, PR3744073, &, PR3743518, Dated, 21/3/2020 As of Right”. The infringement notices to which the document referred were both issued for driving a vehicle at a speed exceeding the speed limit. The document seeks the quashing of the infringement notices.
When the document was filed, the Registrar advised Mr Main that this Court only has jurisdiction to consider applications for leave to appeal against decisions of lower courts. There was therefore no jurisdiction to consider Mr Main’s document. Unsatisfied with that reply, Mr Main applied for “review” of the Registrar’s decision.
In accordance with the procedure outlined by this Court in Slavich v R, the Registrar referred the document filed by Mr Main to a panel of leave judges.[1]
[1]Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195, (2015) 23 PRNZ 117 at [9].
We treat the document filed by Mr Main as an application for leave to appeal against the infringement notices issued. As we pointed out in an earlier decision relating to Mr Main, the jurisdiction of this Court in criminal proceedings is governed by s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.[2] Section 71(a) provides that, in relation to criminal proceedings, this Court’s jurisdiction is to determine applications for leave to appeal and appeals authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. In the present case there is no lower Court decision against which an application for leave to appeal can be initiated. Mr Main’s document therefore asks the Court to do something that it does not have jurisdiction to do.
[2]Main v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 2 at [4].
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider it.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Main v New Zealand Police involved the applicant, Michael Main, and the New Zealand Police. Mr Main sought the quashing of two speeding infringement notices, which he had been issued. He filed a document with the Supreme Court of New Zealand, requesting the quashing of the notices. The Registrar, however, informed Mr Main that the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction to consider applications for leave to appeal against decisions of lower courts and did not have jurisdiction to consider Mr Main’s document. Mr Main then applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision, which was referred to a panel of leave judges.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider Mr Main's application for leave to appeal against the infringement notices. The Court noted that its jurisdiction in criminal proceedings was governed by section 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. According to section 71(a), the Court's jurisdiction is limited to determining applications for leave to appeal and appeals authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Since there was no lower court decision against which Mr Main could initiate an application for leave to appeal, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider his application.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal as it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. The Court noted that the jurisdiction of the Court in criminal proceedings is limited to determining applications for leave to appeal and appeals authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Since there was no lower court decision against which Mr Main could initiate an application for leave to appeal, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider his application. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established