A man who fell off a moped and said his identity was a fiction created by the State has been rebuked for trying to be "funny" in an unusual court judgement.
Malcolm France fell off his moped in Auckland and refused to give his name and address to police, who later found out he had no licence and was banned from driving.
Following a lengthy court battle, in which he appeared in court claiming to be someone else who was acting on his behalf, France was rebuked by judges who were unimpressed by his "frivolous behaviour", and described it as a "mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction", in a Court of Appeal decision released today.
France said he was angry about the decision and planned to appeal it again.
He said he was quite serious about the argument he had put forward in court.
"I'm quite angry to be honest. It proves my point that when people want to oppose what the state is doing ... the state will use all its force and might to protect itself."
France said the decision was not about justice because he claimed he had no legal responsibility to hold a driver's licence, because he rejected any authority the state of New Zealand held over him.
"I no longer accept the Government as lawful and valid."
This issue was a symbolic stand against his larger crusade against the state, Mr France said.
"This is a starting point of opposing the Government because the Government is actually being malicious and trying to harm me," he said.
He said he had no intention to pay the fines.
"I'm going to find out my next avenue [to appeal], probably the Supreme Court."
France famously attacked Act Party candidate John Boscawen with a lamington in 2009, squashing the delicacy on the politician's head during a speech.
After the cake attack, some activists referred to him as Lamington Steele.
Following the moped incident, France was charged with driving while forbidden and failing to provide information. He was convicted, fined and ordered to pay court costs in October 2013.
The Court of Appeal said France had filed an affidavit, apparently claiming he was Malcolm Freeman, possessing "a right of attorney, someone to represent Mr France".
According to the Court of Appeal, France began interrupting the district court and forced an adjournment as the Justices of the Peace and a security officer sought to establish his identity.
It's understood France supported the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. Such a 'Freeman' can be someone in a common law jurisdiction who refused to give consent to be governed and said no statutory obligations applied to them, according to one Freeman's website.
France was declined a re-hearing in the District Court and filed a notice of appeal in the High Court.
"Mr France appeared in support of both appeals, but claiming he was Malcolm-Daniel, the man acting for Mr France," the Court of Appeal said.
"He contended Mr France was a fictional entity, created by the state. He claimed Mr France was neither driving nor travelling on the moped (he called it the 'travelling apparatus') involved in the incident on 29 June 2013."
Justice Brendan Brown dismissed France's first appeal.
"He was unable to detect, in the nonsensical argument Mr France had put to him on appeal, any question of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant a second appeal," the Court of Appeal said.
France then went to the Court of Appeal, but that court said there were procedural errors in France's application , which was filed seven months' late.
The Court of Appeal said France offered an incomprehensible explanation for the delay. It said France appeared to be drawing a distinction between himself and the affiant (affidavit-maker) who was referred to as "Malcolm Daniel AR".
"...This matter was appealed not by Mr France but by the Affiant, -- the living man -- in the form of leave of court/writ of error to be taken to a common law court," France told the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal judges were unimpressed.
"The courts are vexed by the occasional person who pretends not to be who he -- or she -- is. Some of these people may have a genuine identity crisis, but more usually they are engaged in a mischievous attempt to avoid or overturn a conviction. These people may think they are funny or clever, but they are not," the court said in a newly-released judgement.
"Courts are busy and serious places, and judges are busy people. This sort of frivolous behaviour is not wanted in courts."
France could not immediately be reached for comment.