Moeke v Police

[2016] NZHC 2933

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-463-50 [2016] NZHC 2933

BETWEEN

QUENTIN EDWARD MOEKE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	6 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:           Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Respondent

Copy to:            Appellant in person

MOEKE v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2933 [6 December 2016]

police officer.

[2]      On 23 September 2016, Judge LM Bidois delivered a reserved judgment on a protest to the jurisdiction of the Court.1    In general terms, the challenge related to Mr Moeke’s status as Tangata Whenua.  Judge Bidois ruled that the District Court has jurisdiction to hear the charges brought against Mr Moeke.

[3]      On 21 October 2016, Judge PG Mabey QC, in the absence of Mr Moeke, convicted him and, in his presence, sentenced Mr Moeke to 80 hours’ community work.2

[4]      Mr Moeke has now filed a Notice of General Appeal against his conviction. He appears to be representing himself and the handwritten annotations to the Notice of General Appeal refer twice to “no jurisdiction”.  In the space reserved for details of disputed evidence is the following:

Extinguishment of the native Title Exclusive possession of the land Constitutional structure of New Zealand

[5]      Mr  Moeke’s  grounds  for  his  appeal  are  set  out  in  a  document  dated

8 November 2016 and marked “1”.  This appears to be a standard form which has been filled out only to the extent of it being addressed to the Registrar of the High Court at Rotorua and to “The Judge”.   The body of the document is largely incomprehensible but seems to raise issues of the jurisdiction of the Court over members of Tangata Whenua.

[6]      The issues which Mr Moeke wishes to raise, to the extent that they are ascertainable, cannot succeed.  This Court, as with the District Court, recognises and is bound by the laws passed by the Parliament of New Zealand.  Those laws apply to everyone present in New Zealand and the criminal law does not distinguish between

Tangata Whenua and those who are not Tangata Whenua.

1      Police v Kira, Moeke & Huirua [2016] NZDC 17552.

2      Police v Moeke & Kira [2016] NZDC 22195.

Brewer J