Mason v R - [2013] NZCA 310

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA558/2012
[2013] NZCA 310

BETWEEN	TAMATI BENSON MASON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	26 June 2013
Court:	Ellen France, Stevens and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A T Sykes for Appellant V L Hardy and R W Groot for Respondent
Judgment:	17 July 2013 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Introduction

Tamati Mason was convicted of one count of murder and one count of attempted murder after he pleaded guilty to both counts. Mr Mason is serving a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years in relation to this offending.
Mr Mason appeals against his conviction on the basis he should have been dealt with in accordance with tikanga Māori. Underlying the challenge to his conviction is his submission that Māori customary law relating to those who have offended in this way has not been extinguished.
As we shall explain, we have concluded that the Māori system for dealing with wrongdoing relied on by Mr Mason has been extinguished by the Crimes Act 1961 and the provisions of that Act accordingly applied to Mr Mason. It follows that there is no basis for setting aside Mr Mason’s guilty pleas and his conviction must stand.

Background

To put the case in context, we first need to say something about the offending and the process leading up to the sentencing of Mr Mason.

The offending

We take our description of the incidents giving rise to the charges from the sentencing notes of Heath J.[1] As the Judge notes, Mr Mason met Kate Brown about nine years ago. The two entered into a relationship which lasted for about five years. They were engaged to be married. But, after about three years into the engagement, Ms Brown ended the relationship.
[1]R v Mason [2012] NZHC 1849 at [10]–[26].
The two had been separated for approximately three years on 20 February 2011 when, in the early hours of the morning, Mr Mason drove to her home with the intention of damaging something belonging to Ms Brown’s family. At the time, Ms Brown was living with her parents and her brother. Mr Mason parked some distance from the house and walked up to a vehicle parked on the roadside. Although Mr Mason did not know it at the time, the vehicle was owned by Ms Brown’s brother.
Mr Mason smashed the front passenger window of the vehicle punching it with his fist. As a result, he cut his forearm. Mr Mason then walked back towards his vehicle and drove home to attend to his arm which was bleeding heavily.
After attending to his injury, Mr Mason went into the kitchen and armed himself with two large carving knives before he drove back to Ms Brown’s address and parked in the driveway.
Mr Mason got into the house by kicking in a locked door. As he walked upstairs…

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 Mason v R

Details

AGLC: Mason v R [2013] NZCA 310
Case: [2013] NZCA 310
Decision Date: 17 July 2013 at 2.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tamati Mason appealed his conviction for murder and attempted murder, arguing that he should have been dealt with in accordance with tikanga Māori. The Court of Appeal considered whether Māori customary law relating to serious crime had been extinguished by the Crimes Act 1961. The Court found that the combined effect of sections 5 and 9 of the Crimes Act was to restrict offences for which an offender may be tried to those set out in a New Zealand statute. The Court concluded that the Crimes Act operated as a code, covering the field of criminal offences within New Zealand. The Court found that the intention of Parliament to extinguish the customary system was crystal clear and did not require express words of extinguishment. The Court also rejected the argument that consent was a necessary prerequisite to extinguishment. The appeal was dismissed, and Mason's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders