A man’s appeal of his convictions and sentence for driving offences on the grounds he is a "natural living man" has been dismissed in the High Court.
Those appearances had been "quite hostile and intimidating", and he had been threatened with being put in the court’s cells, Bees said.
Following a judge-alone trial before Judge Russell Walker in the Queenstown District Court in July, the self-employed painter was convicted of failing to remain stopped for police, refusing to give particulars to police and refusing to provide a blood specimen.
The charges arose from his actions after refusing to pull over for a breath-screening test at a checkpoint near the Albert Town bridge on December 21 last year.
He was disqualified for eight months, and ordered to pay $1500 in fines and court costs of $429.
Referring to the self-representing Bees as "Jimmy" in her written decision because it was his preferred form of address, Justice Harland said his submissions at the appeal hearing included a reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — a United Nations treaty ratified by New Zealand in 1978 — to claim that requiring him to use a driver’s licence was an "act of slavery".
He had not challenged the evidence presented by police at his trial, instead basing his case for appeal on his "perception" the charges should not have been brought against him without his consent.
"As a natural person, Jimmy argues he is able to make this choice and, if he has not made it, then the laws of the state do not apply to him."
Although he did not describe himself as a "sovereign citizen", his submissions "encapsulate a similar belief system" described in a recent Court of Appeal decision, she said.
The belief system was based on the premise "individuals have two persona, one of flesh and blood, and the other a separate legal or corporate identity that is subject to the jurisdiction of the state".
Its adherents thought they could "dissociate" from their second persona and "free themselves" from New Zealand law.
However, in the same decision, the Court of Appeal had made it clear Acts of Parliament were binding on all people in New Zealand.
She dismissed the appeal against his convictions, saying there were no grounds on which it could succeed.
His appeal against his sentence was also dismissed because it did not meet the legal test of being "manifestly excessive", she said.
— Guy Williams, PIJF court reporter
