Jackson v Ministry of Primary Industries

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA624/2017
[2018] NZCA 68

BETWEEN	ANTHONY KARAURIA JACKSON Appellant
AND	MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES Respondent

Hearing:	1 March 2018
Court:	Gilbert, Simon France and Whata JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person E J Hoskin for Respondent
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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anthony Karauria Jackson, an appellant, sought leave to bring a second appeal against the Ministry of Primary Industries, the respondent, in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appellant was convicted of obtaining a benefit by selling fish without a licence, involving approximately 250 kilograms of minced paua and 43 litres of kina roe. The court sentenced Jackson to 12 months of home detention and 300 hours of community work. Jackson appealed against both the conviction and the sentence, but the appeal was dismissed. Jackson now seeks leave to bring a second appeal, arguing that he had the permission of the local hapu to fish off Motiti Island in accordance with tikanga Māori and that the regulation of fishing off the island is in a state of flux.

The court considered whether the intended appeal raised a matter of general or public importance or if it risked a miscarriage of justice if left unaired. The court found that the appeal against conviction had no prospect of success and that there was nothing to suggest Jackson did not fully appreciate the merits of his position when he pleaded guilty. As to the sentence, the court found that Jackson was afforded an opportunity to present his argument and evidence in support of his tikanga-based claims to the trial judge and the High Court. The court rejected those arguments, referring to letters of advice from local iwi and hapu organisations deprecating Jackson's actions as breaching tikanga.

The Court of Appeal declined the application for leave to bring a second appeal. The court found that there was no flaw in the reasoning of the lower courts, and the appeal against conviction had no prospect of success. The court also found that Jackson was given an opportunity to present his argument and evidence in support of his tikanga-based claims to the trial judge and the High Court. The court rejected those arguments, referring to letters of advice from local iwi and hapu organisations deprecating Jackson's actions as breaching tikanga.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established