A couple refusing to pay rates on their rural Tasman property has had their challenge to the court's jurisdiction to decide the case dismissed in the District Court. Photo / Tracy Neal
A couple refusing to pay rates on their rural Tasman property has had their challenge to the court's jurisdiction to decide the case dismissed in the District Court. Photo / Tracy Neal
A couple refusing to pay rates on their lifestyle property argue it’s because of events in England in 1649.
Robert (Dave) and Janis (Jan) Richardson were taken to court by the Tasman District Council for their refusal to pay $1767 in rates on their 1.85-hectare property in the Hoult Valley near Wakefield, about 25 kilometres south of Nelson.
First, they argued the country’s Local Government Rating Act was invalid because “all statutes in New Zealand were Ultra Vires” (unlawful), and then argued the court had no jurisdiction to decide their case.
The couple were representing themselves but did not appear in court for the hearing.
Judge Tony Zohrab said it was regrettable they chose not to turn up but noted their letter which said: “Thank you for your invitation to appear in court but we decline your offer”.
The council issued proceedings after the Richardsons said they would not pay rates on land they had designated as “allodial” – a term describing feudal land tenure common in the Middle Ages.
They claimed to have absolute ownership of the land and were not bound by any laws.
A couple refusing to pay their rates say they don't recognise New Zealand law because of what happened in England in 1649. Photo / 123RF
Online records showed the Hoult Valley property had a capital value of $610,000 with a current annual rates estimate of $1947, most of which was made up of a general rate, and an annual general charge that incorporated a contribution to the controversial Waimea Community Dam.
There was also a rates contribution to the Mapua rehabilitation, museums, regional river works and stormwater.
The couple did not appear to live at the property and have so far not responded to emails from NZME asking for comment.
The Richardsons claimed in a letter sent to the council’s rates team in December, which was read out in court, that on January 30, 1649 – the day on which Charles I was beheaded in the Tower of London, an Act of Parliament was passed “prohibiting the proclamation of any person as King of England, Ireland or the Dominions”.
The “Dominions” then were the 13 American colonies.
The Richardsons believed it meant that every king or queen proclaimed after the execution of Charles I was “a traitor to the Parliament of England and subsequently New Zealand”.
“The fruit of the poison tree is poison itself,” their letter said.
They said the Governor General signed the Local Government Rating Act (2002) “on behalf of the treasonous Queen Elizabeth II of England”, and in doing so, became a traitor to New Zealand’s Parliament, which made the Act ultra vires.
The letter went on to say that “persons working under the purported authority of the illegal Act” acted in bad faith and may be liable for criminal or civil action.
Judge Zohrab noted their challenge to the court’s jurisdiction curiously relied on District Court rules, which were a product of statute.
“Surprisingly, given they maintain all statutes are unlawful they then purport to rely on the Local Government Act, the Crimes Act, Imperial Laws Application Act, and the Criminal Procedures Act,” Judge Zohrab said.
He said the New Zealand Parliament was empowered to make legislation and the Acts of Parliament were binding on everyone within territorial New Zealand, which meant the Richardsons’ argument could not succeed.
“It’s important the Richardsons understand that the courts are subservient to Acts of Parliament, therefore it’s not up to this court to go behind that.”
Judge Zohrab therefore dismissed as “completely untenable” the proposition advanced by the Richardsons in support of their opposition.
“They are sadly misguided in their beliefs and have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law of the powers of this court.
“What is clear to me is that if they own property they are required to pay rates – they are subject to the Rating Act, and I therefore dismiss the challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.”
Judge Zohrab said if they failed to act the council would be entitled to obtain judgment from the court without going through a full trial.
The council’s communications officer Tim O’Connell told NZME all property owners in the district invariably benefitted from services and works that were funded by rates, and that any decision to deny or refuse to pay was disrespectful of the wider community.
O’Connell said the council had a number of options available to recover unpaid rates, including initiating proceedings for the sale of a property, which was a last resort.
He said the council preferred to work with people to recover any rates owed.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
