Hapi aka Morunga v Police - [2016] NZHC 1360

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000015 [2016] NZHC 1360

BETWEEN
LEE HAPI aka LEE MORUNGA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 20 June 2016

Appearances:

Appellant in person
M Dillon for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 at 12:30 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton

Copy to: Appellant

HAPI aka MORUNGA v POLICE [2016] NZHC 1360 [22 June 2016]

[1] Following a defended hearing in the Hamilton District Court on

26 November 2015 before Judge MLSF Burnett, Mr Hapi was, on 27 November

2015, found guilty by the Judge of one charge of driving a motor vehicle on State Highway 1 while disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence, having been convicted at least twice previously of a similar offence, and one charge of threatening to injure named police constables with intent to intimidate them and knowing that his conduct was likely to reasonably intimidate them.

[2] On 29 January 2016 Mr Hapi was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, which he has now served, having been released on 2 May 2016. He nonetheless appeals against conviction and sentence.

Discussion

[3] The grounds of appeal were not specified in the notice of appeal. Mr Hapi had written as the grounds of his appeal “Evidence shows in the decision by Judge Tompkins”. At the outset of the hearing, I therefore asked Mr Hapi to advise me of his specific grounds of appeal. He said that his rights as a native inhabitant had been violated or totally disregarded by Judge Burnett in that he had the right to travel freely on land which was unextinguished native title land. He also said that Judge Burnett failed to appreciate the significance of sovereign traveller’s permits that have been registered in the Legislative Council as occupiers of the native title land.

[4] When I asked him for a copy of a sovereign traveller’s permit, he said that he did not have a copy of such a permit on him, but said that he had given a copy to the authorities. In any event, he had one on his car, which he could take off and bring in as evidence.

[5] Mr Hapi also referred me to two documents – an oral judgment of Judge J C Down, dated 26 November 2015, and a minute of Judge C M Ryan, dated 21 March
2016, in respect of a defendant named as Peter Alfred Hynes. Mr Hapi drew my attention to the comments in those documents about traveller’s permits.

[6] He also said that he is not relying on any contracts issued by this government or by government departments. By that he meant documents such as driver’s

licences. Finally, he also said that there is no evidence of native title being extinguished in respect of the land on which he was travelling and, in any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hapi aka Morunga v Police

Details

AGLC: Hapi aka Morunga v Police [2016] NZHC 1360
Case: [2016] NZHC 1360
Decision Date: 22 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lee Hapi (also known as Lee Morunga) appealed against his conviction and sentence from the Hamilton District Court. Hapi was found guilty of driving a vehicle while disqualified and threatening police officers with intent to intimidate them. He was sentenced to 16 months imprisonment, which he completed, and was released on 2 May 2016. The grounds of appeal were not specified in the notice of appeal, but Hapi claimed that his rights as a native inhabitant had been violated, asserting that he had the right to travel freely on unextinguished native title land and that the judge failed to appreciate the significance of sovereign traveller's permits.

The court was required to decide whether Hapi's arguments about his rights as a native inhabitant and the validity of sovereign traveller's permits were sufficient grounds for overturning his conviction and sentence. The court needed to determine whether these claims raised justiciable issues that could be addressed in the general courts of New Zealand or if they were better suited for political or constitutional debate.

The court found that Hapi's claims did not raise justiciable issues. The court reiterated that it must uphold all acts of Parliament and that the Courts of New Zealand are not the appropriate forum for fundamental challenges to the constitutional structure of New Zealand. The court relied on previous decisions, such as Creeks v R and Lee Hapi v New Zealand Police, which had similarly rejected challenges to the jurisdiction of the court based on claims of Maori sovereignty. The court concluded that these were political and constitutional arguments to be debated in a political forum, not in the courts. As no other grounds of appeal were raised, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed, and Hapi's conviction and sentence from the Hamilton District Court were upheld.

Orders