Martin v Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2014-419-32 [2014] NZHC 2668

BETWEEN PETER JAMES MARTIN Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 October 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
T C Tran for Respondent

Judgment:

29 October 2014

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against conviction]

MARTIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2668 [29 October 2014]

[1] Following a defended hearing in the District Court, Judge Spiller convicted Mr Martin on a charge of failing to comply with a lawful requirement given to him under the Land Transport Act 1998 by an enforcement officer.1 The charge arose out of the fact that Mr Martin allegedly drove a motor vehicle during a period in which he had been forbidden to drive by an enforcement officer.

[2] Mr Martin sought to defend the charge in the District Court on the basis that the District Court had no jurisdiction over him. Although he developed that argument to a significant extent, it is not necessary for present purposes to traverse his argument.

[3] Mr Martin has appealed against conviction on the same ground. He acknowledged during the hearing today that this Court is bound by numerous decisions of the Court of Appeal to this effect that the courts of New Zealand have jurisdiction over all citizens, and that the Court cannot find that the District Court did
have jurisdiction in respect of any individual in relation to criminal charges.2

[4] Mr Martin is anxious to advance his argument before the Court of Appeal and/or the Supreme Court. He tells me that he has in fact endeavoured to have the present appeal dealt with by the Court of Appeal, but the Court of Appeal has advised him that it currently has no jurisdiction in respect of the appeal. That is correct. Mr Martin must first proceed with his appeal to this Court, and if it does not succeed he must then seek leave or special leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

[5] As Mr Martin acknowledges, I am bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal to which I have referred. I cannot uphold his appeal on the basis that the District Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge against him. That being the case, the appeal is dismissed. Mr Martin will no doubt now seek leave to
appeal to the Court of Appeal so that he can have the issue aired in that Court.

Lang J

1 New Zealand Police v Martin DC Hamilton 2013 019 5493 and 6496, 16 June 2014.
2 See eg R v Mitchell CA 68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14] and Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580 at [3].

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Hamilton
Copy to Appellant

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin v Police, the appellant, Peter James Martin, appealed a conviction from the District Court, where Judge Spiller found him guilty of failing to comply with a lawful requirement under the Land Transport Act 1998. The conviction arose from Mr Martin's alleged failure to adhere to a driving prohibition imposed by an enforcement officer. Mr Martin contested the jurisdiction of the District Court over him, an argument he had also presented in the District Court. However, he conceded that the Court was bound by precedents from the Court of Appeal affirming that New Zealand courts have jurisdiction over all citizens. Despite his acknowledgment of these precedents, Mr Martin wished to challenge this jurisdictional matter further, potentially before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the District Court had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the charge against Mr Martin. Mr Martin argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction, a stance he maintained from his initial defence in the lower court. However, Lang J was constrained by Court of Appeal decisions that affirmed the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts over all citizens. Consequently, the court could not uphold the argument that the District Court lacked jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of Mr Martin's appeal. Mr Martin indicated his intention to seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to further contest the jurisdictional issue.

Lang J dismissed Mr Martin's appeal on the basis that the District Court had jurisdiction over the matter, in line with established Court of Appeal decisions. The judgment concluded that Mr Martin could seek leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, where he might further pursue the jurisdictional issue. This decision underscores the binding nature of higher court precedents on jurisdictional matters in the New Zealand legal system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	PETER JAMES MARTIN Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	29 October 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in person T C Tran for Respondent
Judgment:	29 October 2014