Hapi v Police - [2014] NZHC 2696

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-419-000012 [2014] NZHC 2696

BETWEEN
LEE HAPI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 31 October 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in Person
T C Tran for the Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2014

[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

HAPI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2696 [31 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 14 January 2014, following a Judge-alone trial before Judge P R Connell, in the District Court at Hamilton, Mr Hapi was convicted of the following charges:

(a) Assault on a police officer – s 192(2) of the Crimes Act 1961;

(b) Assault on another police officer – s 10 of the Summary Offences Act

1981;

(c) Theft of property – ss 219 and 223(d) of the Crimes Act;

(d) Intimidation and threats – s 21(1)(e) of the Summary Offences Act;

and

(e) Resisting the police – s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act.

[2] On 18 February 2014, Mr Hapi was sentenced to a term of 11 months’

imprisonment by Judge Connell.

[3] Mr Hapi has filed a notice of appeal. The grounds of appeal are stated as follows:

Constitutions, jurisdictions, legal entity challenge, statement of confidence.

Factual Background

[4] The charges against Mr Hapi arose from an incident that occurred at a petrol station in Huntly. After filling his motorcycle with petrol, Mr Hapi verbally abused staff at the petrol station. He told them that he did not have to pay for the petrol and other items he wished to purchase. He claimed that he was entitled to offset the cost of the petrol and other items against rent which he said was owing to him in respect of the land on which the petrol station is situated.

[5] Mr Hapi left the petrol station, and a short time later he was approached by the police officers. He repeated similar statements to them. They proceeded to

arrest him. In the process, Mr Hapi assaulted one of the officers, causing minor injury to him. He also assaulted the other officer.

[6] The value of the petrol taken was approximately $120.

Submissions

[7] When the matter was called in Court this morning, there was no appearance by Mr Hapi. Both Mr Tran, appearing for the Crown, and the Registrar, checked on his status. I am told that Mr Hapi is no longer in custody. Rather, he is on bail in relation to another matter. Further, the Registrar tells me that Mr Hapi came into the registry some two to three weeks ago. She spoke to him and confirmed with him that his appeal was to be heard today.

[8] I did stand the matter down for 15 minutes to give Mr Hapi the opportunity to appear, and in case he had been delayed by some unforeseen event. There was still no appearance either by him, or on his behalf.

[9] I anticipate from the decision given in the District Court by Judge Connell, and from the notice of appeal, that Mr…

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 v Police

Details

AGLC: Hapi v Police [2014] NZHC 2696
Case: [2014] NZHC 2696
Decision Date: 31 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hapi v Police involves Mr Lee Hapi, who was convicted by Judge P R Connell in the District Court at Hamilton on 14 January 2014 of various criminal charges, including assault on police officers, theft, intimidation, and resisting arrest. Following his conviction, Mr Hapi was sentenced to a term of 11 months' imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the outcome, he filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence. The central issue in the appeal was whether the District Court had jurisdiction to try Mr Hapi, given his assertion of Māori sovereignty and his contention that he should only be judged by Māori law.

The High Court, presided over by Wylie J, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as Mr Hapi did not appear in court. However, the Court also noted that the appeal would have failed on the merits. The court held that the assertion of Māori sovereignty and the demand for a separate justice system for Māori offenders is a political and constitutional argument rather than a justiciable issue, and thus outside the purview of the court. The Court reaffirmed the principle that Parliament's legislative power is sovereign and its laws apply to all New Zealanders, regardless of race. The Court concluded that it is not open to the court to find that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Mr Hapi.

The Court's decision underscores the settled legal position in New Zealand that the assertion of Māori sovereignty does not provide a basis for challenging the jurisdiction of the courts or the validity of parliamentary legislation. The Court's judgment emphasized that Parliament's legislative authority is supreme and that the courts are bound to apply statutory enactments as they are written, without considering political or cultural arguments regarding sovereignty. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders