A Taupō motorcyclist who attempted to invoice the New Zealand Government, police, courts, and others for $55 million “for his time” has had his High Court appeal dismissed after challenging the applicability of New Zealand law to himself based on Māori sovereignty and “sovereign citizen” principles.

Kemp Adrian Paerata was convicted and discharged at Taupō District Court on a charge of failing to stop when signaled by police flashing red and blue lights. He appealed the conviction at the High Court in Rotorua, representing himself. Along with the appeal, Paerata submitted an invoice demanding $55 million, asserting that the Police were effectively a private company, Parliament held no jurisdiction over him, and that he possessed sovereignty equal to that of King Charles III through his whakapapa (genealogy).

Justice Layne Harvey rejected these claims and dismissed the appeal, stating that while Paerata genuinely held these beliefs, New Zealand courts have consistently rejected such “sovereign citizen” arguments. “Central to Mr Paerata’s case on appeal is that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court or of the police,” the judge said, adding that courts have “consistently and unequivocally rejected sovereign citizen pseudo law arguments.”

Paerata argued that he had not seen the police flashing lights due to a 60% hearing loss and being distracted after a psychological counselling session. He claimed that he only became aware of the police officer near his home, where he intended to invite the officer inside for tea before feeling upset by the interaction. He also asked to speak with an iwi liaison officer instead, stating, “I’m talking to the arse, I want to talk to the head.”

In support of his case, Paerata filed numerous documents referencing He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act, historical court rulings, biblical passages, and an “Affidavit of Life” that sought to distinguish himself from the legal identity recorded in capital letters. He also referred to a 1666 statute and related legislation, which Justice Harvey requested not be read in court.

Paerata claimed that roads within the Ngāti Tūwharetoa rohe remained under native title and thus New Zealand law did not apply to him. He further asserted he was not legally a “driver,” contending that the term applied only to paid professional drivers such as truckers or couriers.

Justice Harvey described some of the arguments as emblematic of sovereign citizen ideology, including the “strawman” theory that separates the living individual from a legal persona represented by their capitalised name in official documents. Noting recent academic work highlighting the convergence between sovereign citizen and Māori sovereignty claims, the judge stated that neither theory can override the jurisdiction of New Zealand courts.

The judge acknowledged that Paerata’s whakapapa may confer mana tuku iho (inherited authority), but emphasized that it does not exempt an individual from the law. Furthermore, Justice Harvey found that the legal authorities Paerata cited did not substantiate his claims, characterising jurisdictional challenges of this nature as “plainly unsound legally” and “frivolous and vexatious.”

While the appeal was dismissed, Justice Harvey noted Paerata’s intention to pursue further appeals, including to the Supreme Court, if necessary. The judge recognized Paerata’s sincere convictions but emphasized that under current constitutional arrangements, New Zealand courts are unlikely to uphold such sovereignty claims.