Matahaere v Police

[2012] NZHC 2436

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2012-419-000042 [2012] NZHC 2436

BETWEEN  WARREN ROY MATAHAERE Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         19 September 2012

Appearances: Appellant in Person

J Tarrant for Respondent

Judgment:      20 September 2012

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 September 2012 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the

High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Hamilton

Copy to:            Appellant

MATAHAERE V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI-2012-419-000042 [20 September 2012]

[1]      Following  a  defended  hearing  in  the  District  Court  at  Morrinsville  the appellant, Mr Matahaere, was convicted of driving while forbidden to do so and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty.  Judge Ruth convicted and discharged him on the charge of whilst forbidden.  On the charge of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty he was fined $200 together with costs.

[2]      Mr Matahaere appeals against the conviction and sentence.  In the notice of appeal he says:

I was not permitted to reply or give evidence I intended to give in my defence of these allegations.  The presiding judge told the court his views on what I may say backed by two typed pages that were handed to me on why my evidence would fail.   This was a predetermined verdict and not a fair hearing.  The courts and NZ Government must take into account that they must uphold there [sic] sovereign’s law’s [sic] that are welcome in all courts here in Aotearoa, NZ.

[3]      In  support  of  his  appeal  hearing  Mr  Matahaere  also  provided  written submissions to the Court.  He says he told the officer that he did not come under the Queen’s sovereignty and that he did not recognise the New Zealand Government’s jurisdiction which is the birth right of the Maori people.  He says the police officer assaulted him by handcuffing him and the taking of his car was theft.  He says he was locked away in a confined space without his consent and was kidnapped.

[4]      Mr Matahaere criticised the Judge’s conduct of the hearing.

[5]      Mr Matahaere also referred to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and a number of other documents and treaties, including:

Declaration of Independence; The Treaty of Waitangi;

1846 NZ Constitution Act;

1852 NZ Constitution Act;

1858 Native Circuit Courts Act;

and referred to the cases of Arani v Public Trust;[1]    Nihara Tamaki v Baker;[2]  and

Willis v Attorney General (Native Tribal Title).

[1] Arani v The Public Trustee of New Zealand (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC).

[2] Tamaki v Baker (1901) [1840-1932] NZPCC 371.

[6]      In particular Mr Matahaere referred to and relied on the preamble to the Te

Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and other provisions of that Act.

[7]      Apart from the general issue of sovereignty, the documents Mr Matahaere has filed suggests that the District Court Judge did not conduct a fair hearing.   I have reviewed  the  notes  of  evidence,  the  Judge’s  reasons  for  convictions  and  his sentencing notes.  Mr Matahaere’s criticism of him is ill founded and unfair.  The notes of evidence record that at the end of the prosecution case Mr Matahaere elected not to call evidence.  He was not denied the opportunity to do so.

[8]      It is also apparent that, in seeking to assist Mr Matahaere understand why his sovereignty arguments could not succeed, the Judge presented Mr Matahaere with some notes, no doubt, in an attempt to help Mr Matahaere understand why his arguments could not succeed.  It is not a case of the Judge having a closed mind but simply applying the law of New Zealand and attempting to assist the appellant.

[9]      Mr Matahaere’s appeal based on Maori sovereignty issues is misconceived.

[10]  The Crown established sovereignty over New Zealand through the proclamations approved by the Crown and the gazetting of the acquisition of New Zealand by the Crown in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840.[3]  Accordingly, Acts of Parliament are binding on all persons within the territory of New Zealand, regardless of whether they are Maori or Pakeha.

[3] New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641, 690.

[11]     The Courts are subservient to Parliament.  The Courts are not entitled to go behind what Parliament has enacted.  The Courts must apply Acts of Parliament in

the terms of which they have been enacted.

[12]     While the Treaty of Waitangi is a key document in the history of the relations between Maori and the Crown, the Treaty is not the basis on which the Government has legal authority.  The basis for this is the proclamation of sovereignty.  The Treaty has strong moral force but does not have binding legal force.  Kaihau v Police.[4]

[4] Kaihau v Police HC Palmerston North AP5/2000, 11 May 2000.

[13]     Mr Matahaere also referred to the Magna Carta.  The Magna Carta was not supreme law in the sense of limiting Parliamentary sovereignty.  It therefore cannot be used to curtail the power of Parliament to make laws:  Shaw v Commissioner of Inland Revenue.[5]

[5] Shaw v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1999] 3 NZLR 154 (CA).

[14]     Mr Matahaere’s reference to the Constitution Acts also do not assist him. The

Constitution Act 1981 repealed the provisions of the previous Constitution Acts.

[15]     Next, the legal status of the Declaration of Independence 1835 is the same as that of the Treaty of Waitangi.   Unless specifically referred to in the legislature it cannot be enforced as law:  R v Pairama.[6]

[6] R v Pairama (1995) 13 CRNZ 496, 499.

[16]     Finally, the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Maori Land Act 1993 do not confer any criminal jurisdiction over Maori in Maori institutions.   As the Court of Appeal explained in R v Miru:[7]

The preamble records the desirability of recognising that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to Maori people, and of promoting retention of Maori ownership of land. There is nothing in that statement of the Act's purpose in its long title, nor in the Preamble to the Act, which suggests it is intended to provide a means for the enforcement of the criminal law. The provisions in Part XIII of the Act for Maori incorporations are concerned with providing for incorporation as a mechanism for multiple ownership of land.

[7] R v Miru CA65/01 26 July 2001 at [7].

[17]     In Arani v The Public Trustee of New Zealand[8]  the non statutory adoption under Maori custom was recognised by the Privy Council as effective under the New

Zealand Adoption Act 1895.  That case does not support Mr Matahaere’s appeal.  In

fact that form of adoption was rejected by the Adoption Act 1956, confirming the sovereignty of Parliament.

[8] Arani v The Public Trustee of New Zealand (1919) NZPCC 1 (PC).

[18]     Next, Mr Matahaere also refers to Tamaki v Baker.[9]   The Privy Council held that the Courts did have jurisdiction to investigate native title.  However, customary rights could not be enforced until or unless confirmed by statute by New Zealand Parliament.   Further, in response to that case Parliament enacted the Land Title Protection Act 1902.  In any event issues of native title can be of no assistance to Mr Matahaere in the present case.  For similar reasons Willis v Attorney General is of no assistance to him.

[9] Tamaki v Baker (1900-1901) [1840-1932] NZPCC 371.

[19]     The short point which Mr Matahaere no doubt will not accept is that, as the Courts of New Zealand have made plain on a number of occasions now, arguments based upon an assertion that the Parliament of New Zealand was not authorised to make law affecting some or all of the persons living in New Zealand cannot succeed.

[20]     The Courts of New Zealand are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament, including the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Summary Proceedings Act 1981.  The points Mr Matahaere seek to advance have been squarely rejected not only by this Court but also by the Court of Appeal on a number of occasions.  While Mr Matahaere either does not want to or is unable to accept the fact he nevertheless is bound by the decisions of the Courts and the Acts of New Zealand Parliament.

[21]     The appeal is dismissed.

Venning J