Mokaraka v Police

[2016] NZHC 1074

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-000014 [2016] NZHC 1074

BETWEEN

LOUISE MOKARAKA

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	23 May 2016
Appearances:	Appellant in person H Benson-Pope for Respondent
Judgment:	23 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF LANG J [on appeal against conviction]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 May 2016 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date…………

MOKARAKA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 1074 [23 May 2016]

[1]      In September 2013, Ms Mokaraka was served with three traffic infringement notices issued under the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998.  She elected to defend the charges, but was convicted at the conclusion of a hearing before two Justices of the Peace (the Justices) on 14 January 2014.

[2]      Ms Mokaraka subsequently filed four appeals seeking to have the Justices’ decision reviewed by a Judge of the District Court.   For various reasons the first three notices of appeal were lost or not processed.  The fourth appeal was heard and dismissed, apparently in Ms Mokaraka’s absence, on 4 June 2015.   Ms Mokaraka seeks leave to appeal against that decision.

Approach

[3]      The application for leave to appeal suggests that Ms Mokaraka intended to prosecute her appeal to this Court on the basis that procedural errors committed in the District Court had the effect of rendering her conviction a miscarriage of justice. These included the fact that her fourth appeal was dismissed following a hearing at which she did not appear.

[4]      Ordinarily  an  appellate  court  will  scrutinise  closely  an  appeal  based  on alleged procedural error of this type.  A miscarriage of justice can easily occur if a party is not given an opportunity to be heard.  The submissions that Ms Mokaraka filed in support of her application for leave to appeal demonstrate, however, that she had defended the charges on “hapu sovereignty” or “Maori sovereignty” grounds, and also wishes to argue that issue on appeal.

[5]      During the hearing before me, Ms Mokaraka amplified her argument  by stating that the Maori Chiefs did not cede their sovereignty to the “British Crown agents” purporting to represent Queen Victoria on 6 February 1840.  She argues that this meant Parliament had enacted the Land Transport Act 1998 through fraudulent means.  As a result, any infringement by her of the provisions of that Act could not amount to a criminal offence.

[6]      Once it is recognised that Ms Mokaraka originally defended the charges on this basis and seeks to advance it again on appeal, any procedural errors that may

have occurred in the District Court become of no moment.  There would be no point, for example, remitting the matter for rehearing in the District Court if the issue that Ms Mokaraka wishes to argue is untenable as a matter of law.

Decision

[7]      As Mr Benson-Pope points out for the respondent, the courts have regularly rejected defences to criminal charges based on grounds similar to that relied upon by Ms Mokaraka.  The authorities were recently summarised in this Court in Kanapu v Police.1   In that case Thomas J observed:

[21]      It is well-established that New Zealand Courts have jurisdiction over all people in New Zealand who have committed crimes. Further, the Courts are bound constitutionally and legally to uphold and follow the laws passed by  the  New  Zealand  Parliament.  In  R  v  Mitchell,  the  Court  of Appeal observed:2

This Court has made it plain on a number of occasions now that arguments that are 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 before it. Our courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament… [a litigant] is not entitled to put himself outside the law of New Zealand.

[8]      The Supreme Court has also confirmed that challenges to the jurisdiction of

New Zealand laws on Maori sovereignty grounds are “plainly unsound legally”.3

[9]      It is clear from these authorities that Ms Mokaraka’s substantive argument has no prospect of success.  For that reason, no miscarriage of justice has occurred and it would be wrong to remit the proceeding for rehearing in the District Court regardless of any error of process that may have occurred in that jurisdiction.

Result

[10]     The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Lang J

1      Kanapu v Police [2016] NZHC 143 at [21]-[29].

2      R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14].

3      Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2].

Solicitors:

Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau