Makiha v Police

[2013] NZHC 93

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2012-470-45 [2013] NZHC 93

BETWEEN  HENRY SOLOMAN MAKIHA Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         7 February 2013

Appearances: N Belton for the Crown

Appellant in person

Judgment:      7 February 2013

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PRIESTLEY J

Counsel:

Crown Solicitors, Tauranga. [email protected]

Copy to:

H S Makiha, 41 Beach Road, Katikati,3178

MAKIHA V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC ROT CRI-2012-470-45 [7 February 2013]

[1]      The appellant is representing himself.  Throughout the hearing he has been respectful and has done his best to answer my various questions.

[2]      The appellant faced three charges of trespass in the Tauranga  District Court. These three were called before Judge Wills on 2 November 2012.  One charge was withdrawn.  On the other two charges the appellant, as is clear from the transcript, accepted what was in the summary of facts and pleaded guilty.

[3]      The Judge was initially concerned that the appellant had been in custody since 23 October 2012.  In other words he was on custodial remand and had not been bailed.  The total remand period was one of approximately nine days.  The solution to which the Judge came to strikes me as being a sensible one.  She convicted the appellant on the two counts he faced and ordered that he come up for sentence if called upon within the next six months.

[4]      The charges he faced were wilful trespass at the Katikati Medical Centre.  It is clear from the summary of facts that there had been a history of the appellant revisiting those premises when he had been warned off.

[5]      Given that the convictions were the result of a guilty plea where the appellant clearly understood the consequences of pleading guilty, there can be no basis for my allowing an appeal against conviction.   Nor, in the circumstances I have outlined, can  there be any basis  for saying that  the sentence imposed by the Judge was manifestly excessive.   Indeed, given the background, a nine day custodial remand was probably in itself an unnecessary and excessive penalty.

[6]      The appellant has a number of concerns which he has respectfully raised with me today.  The first concern is that he believes there may well be other unresolved criminal matters involving him before the Tauranga District Court.  I have explained to him I have no jurisdiction to interfere with matters pending in the District Court (if there are any), which have not been brought to finality.

[7]      The second issue is there is perhaps a perception on the part of judges and police that the appellant has mental health issues.  He denies this and says that he has no diagnosable condition.

[8]      The third issue relates to the appellant’s name, Henry Soloman Makiha.  The appellant’s view is he is obliged to respect people in authority.  Nonetheless he has a perception that he may be known by other names to the police and/or may have been charged under other names.  Whether this is correct or not I do not know, but I note the appellant’s concerns.   Certainly the information before the Judge and the appellant’s name on High Court papers is recorded as Henry Soloman Makiha.  As I understand it the appellant acknowledges that this is his name.  The appellant refers to  the fact  he has  had  difficulties  in  obtaining  his  proper birth  certificate.   He acknowledges that he has left New Zealand before and would have had a New Zealand passport for that purpose but was not able to give me the name in which his passport was issued.

[9]      I  have  recorded  these  matters  solely  so  the  appellant  has  the  correct perception that I have listened to him and understand his concerns.  It is my belief, having listened to and watched the appellant in court today, and having read the transcript  from  the  District  Court,  that  there  may  possibly  be  some  obsessive qualities or concerns which he exhibits from time to time.   Whether or not the appellant chooses to seek medical assistance for this is entirely a matter for him.

[10]     So far as the appeal is concerned, for the reasons which I have stated, there is no basis for allowing either the appeal against conviction, or the appeal against sentence.

[11]     For these reasons, therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

.......................................…

Priestley J