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…

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 Matahaere v Police

Details

AGLC: Matahaere v Police [2012] NZHC 2436
Case: [2012] NZHC 2436
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matahaere v Police, the appellant, Warren Roy Matahaere, appealed against his conviction and sentence for driving while forbidden and obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. The appeal was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Hamilton Registry. The legal issues before the court included whether the appellant was denied the opportunity to present his defence and whether the District Court judge conducted a fair hearing. The court examined the evidence presented and the reasoning provided by the District Court judge.

The court found that the appellant was not denied the opportunity to present his defence. The notes of evidence indicated that the appellant elected not to call evidence after the prosecution case. Furthermore, the court found that the District Court judge did not conduct an unfair hearing but rather applied the law of New Zealand and attempted to assist the appellant. The court also dismissed the appellant's claims based on Maori sovereignty issues, stating that the Crown established sovereignty over New Zealand through the proclamations and the gazetting of the acquisition of New Zealand by the Crown in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences handed down by the District Court. The court found that the appellant was not denied the opportunity to present his defence and that the District Court judge conducted a fair hearing. The court also rejected the appellant's claims based on Maori sovereignty issues, stating that the Crown established sovereignty over New Zealand and that the Courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament.

Orders