Mahia v Police - [2022] NZHC 2413

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2022-463-000094

[2022] NZHC 2413

BETWEEN
CHARLES HURIHIA MAHIA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 19 September 2022

Appearances:

Appellant in Person with McKenzie friend Georgina o te whanau Turanga (by VMR)

A Maino for Respondent (by VMR)

Judgment:

21 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Conviction and Sentence Appeal

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2022 at 3.30 pm,

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua Copy to: Appellant

MAHIA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2413 [21 September 2022]

Introduction

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court at Tokoroa Judge D A Blair found Charles Mahia guilty of the following charges:1

(a)on 8 August 2021 driving a motor vehicle while his driver’s licence was suspended;2

(b)being a driver of a vehicle that was stopped failed to remain stopped as required (on 8 August 2021);3

(c)being a driver of a vehicle that was stopped failed to remain stopped as required (on 20 September 2021);4 and

(d)on 20 September 2021 failed to comply with the lawful requirement to stop for a police vehicle displaying blue and red lights or sounding a siren.5

[2] On the charge of driving while suspended the Judge sentenced Mr Mahia to the mandatory disqualification of six months from driving, and fined him $500. On the other three charges which the Judge found proved he convicted and discharged Mr Mahia.

Appeal

[3] Mr Mahia now appeals to this Court against the conviction and sentence. In his notice of appeal Mr Mahia set out the following points:

(a)miscarriage of justice;

(b)common law of England;

1      NZ Police v Mahia [2022] NZDC 13635. Two further charges arising from 8 August 2021 and one from 4 October 2021 were dismissed.
2      Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA), ss 32(1)(c) and 32(3).
3      LTA, ss 52A(1)(b) and 114.
4      LTA, ss 52A(1)(b) and 114.
5      LTA, s 114(2).

(c)Te Tiriti o Waitangi 6 February 1840;

(d)Maori customs and usages;

(e)failing to not recognise Tikanga; and

(f)oral evidence by way of a recording dismissed by the prosecution and Court.

[4] Mr Mahia also attached to the notice of appeal, a document noted as Exhibit A, Writ of Mandamus dated 25 January 2022.

[5] Mr Mahia represented himself at his appeal hearing and was assisted by a McKenzie friend. During the course of the hearing Mr Mahia expanded on aspects of the appeal points noted above. He made a number of points, some of which were raised before Judge Blair, notably his reliance on mana Motuhake, sovereignty was a French word which he did not recognise, and he told the Court there was a difference between Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which was signed by over 500 Rangatira over a period of nine months as opposed to the Treaty which was signed at Waitangi by 39 Waikato chiefs. Mr Mahia emphasised his right to travel and submitted that right pre-existed…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mahia v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NZHC 2413
Decision Date: 21 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court heard an appeal by Charles Hurihia Mahia against both his conviction and sentence in the District Court. The District Court had found Mr Mahia guilty of driving while his licence was suspended, and of failing to remain stopped when requested by police on two occasions. The District Court sentenced Mr Mahia to six months' disqualification from driving and fined him $500. In his notice of appeal Mr Mahia set out six grounds, including that the District Court had no jurisdiction over him, and that tikanga entitled him to travel freely. Mr Mahia also attached a document to his notice of appeal, which was a confusing and legally nonsensical argument that he was not the person named in the documentation, and could not be deemed to play the role of the defendant without consent. The Court held that the appeal against conviction must be dismissed because the grounds raised lacked any substantive merit. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, as the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appeals were dismissed in their entirety.

Orders