Jackson v Ministry of Primary Industries
[2018] NZCA 68
•22 March 2018 at 2.30 pm
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND |
| CA624/2017 [2018] NZCA 68 |
| BETWEEN | ANTHONY KARAURIA JACKSON |
| AND | MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES |
| Hearing: | 1 March 2018 |
Court: | Gilbert, Simon France and Whata JJ |
Counsel: | Appellant in person |
Judgment: | 22 March 2018 at 2.30 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Whata J)
Mr Jackson pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining a benefit by selling fish in circumstances where he had no licence to do so. The offending involved in the order of 250 kilograms of minced paua with a black-market value of $18,890 and approximately 43 litres of kina roe, valued at $3,472. He was sentenced by Judge Ingram to 12 months’ home detention and 300 hours’ community work.[1] He appealed against conviction and sentence. This appeal was dismissed by Heath J.[2] He now seeks leave to bring a second appeal.
[1]Police v Jackson [2017] NZDC 11268.
[2]Jackson v Ministry of Primary Industries [2017] NZHC 1860.
Mr Jackson claims he had the permission of the local hapu to fish off Motiti Island in accordance with tikanga Māori. He contends regulation of fishing off Motiti Island is in a state of flux and, within the corresponding vacuum, the tikanga of his hapu prevailed. He says the Courts below were wrong to dismiss these claims and he seeks leave to present further oral and written evidence in support of them.
Mr Jackson’s intended appeal does not raise a matter of general or public importance, nor risk a miscarriage of justice if left unaired. The appeal against conviction has no prospect of success. There is nothing before us to suggest Mr Jackson did not fully appreciate the merits of his position when he pleaded guilty. As to sentence, Mr Jackson was afforded an opportunity to present his argument and evidence in support of his tikanga-based claims to Judge Ingram and then to Heath J. His arguments were carefully considered by them. In rejecting those arguments, both Courts referred to letters of advice from local iwi and hapu organisations deprecating Mr Jackson’s actions as breaching tikanga.[3] We see no flaw in their reasoning.
[3]Ministry of Primary Industries v Noble [2017] NZDC 8354, at [10]-[13]; Police v Jackson, above n 1, at [7]; and Wells v Ministry of Primary Industries [2017] NZHC 1860 at [16] and [28].
Accordingly, the application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent