Reserved decision — failing to comply with COVID-19 order — refusal to display QR code — challenge to jurisdiction — proceeding in absence of defendant — COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, s 26(1) — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 6(1), 121 & 122 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25 — COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order 2020, cl 8(1) — Ngaronoa and Wilde v The Attorney General of New Zealand [2017] NZCA 351 — Kumar v R [2013] NZCA 77, [2013] 3 NZLR 201 — R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5, [2003] 1 AC 1 — R v Momi and Others [2019] NZHC 2681. The defendant faced a charge of intentionally failing to comply with a COVID-19 order. He was alleged to have refused to display a QR code at his cafe. At his scheduled court hearing, the defendant challenged the Court's jurisdiction and then left the courtroom. The prosecution applied for the hearing to proceed in the defendant's absence. The Court dismissed the defendant's arguments that the proceedings were unconstitutional and unlawful. Such arguments had been repeatedly rejected by the higher courts. The District Court did have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Regarding the issue of whether to proceed without the defendant, the Court referred to s 122 of the Criminal Procedure Act and concluded that the defendant had no reasonable excuse for being absent from the hearing. However, the question of jurisdiction that the defendant had raised had required the Court's consideration. Also, the defendant may not have been aware that the matter could still proceed after he left the courtroom. The Court was satisfied that to hear the matter in the defendant's absence would not be in the interests of justice. The application was refused. Judgment Date: 31 May 2022.