Main v Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 2/2019
[2019] NZSC 2

BETWEEN	MICHAEL MAIN Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	18 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was found liable by a Community Magistrate under infringement notices issued for various transport-related offences.[1] He appealed to the District Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Court over him because of his status as a Māori. His appeal was dismissed.[2] He then applied for leave to appeal to the High Court. Again, his arguments were directed to the proposition that the Court did not have jurisdiction over him. Leave was declined.[3]
[1]Police v Main DC Hamilton CRI-2017-019-8526, 22 June 2018.
[2]Main v Police [2018] NZDC 15859 (Judge Menzies).
[3]Main v Police [2018] NZHC 1828 (Brewer J).
The applicant then attempted to file in the Court of Appeal an application for leave to appeal to that Court. The Deputy Registrar declined to accept this application. The Deputy Registrar pointed out, in a letter to the applicant, that the decision of the High Court was final and no further appeal was available.
The applicant applied for a review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision by a judge of the Court of Appeal. Brown J upheld the Deputy Registrar’s decision.[4] He noted that a decision of the High Court refusing to give leave for a second appeal is final and not amenable to appeal to the Court of Appeal.[5]
[4]Main v Police [2018] NZCA 527.
[5]At [9], referring to s 213(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
The applicant then filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision of Brown J. This Court’s jurisdiction in relation to appeals in criminal proceedings is governed by s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, which, relevantly, provides that this Court may hear and determine appeals authorised by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. No provision is made in that Part for appeals against decisions of Court of Appeal judges dealing with a review of a decision of a Registrar or Deputy Registrar.
As the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for leave to appeal, the application is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Main v Police was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Michael Main, the applicant, had been found liable by a Community Magistrate for various transport-related offences. Main had appealed to the District Court, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over him due to his status as a Māori. This argument was rejected, and further appeals to the High Court and the Court of Appeal were also dismissed. Main then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal's decision, but the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision dismissing Main's application for leave to appeal. The Court needed to determine if such an appeal fell within the jurisdiction granted by s 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Court of Appeal had reviewed the Deputy Registrar’s decision and upheld it, concluding that the decision of the High Court refusing leave for a second appeal was final and not amenable to further appeal. The Supreme Court needed to ascertain if this conclusion was correct and whether it had the authority to review the Court of Appeal's decision.

The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Section 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 grants the Supreme Court the authority to hear and determine appeals authorized by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. However, Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal concerning the review of decisions made by Registrars or Deputy Registrars. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that it could not hear the appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established