Noble v The Queen - [2019] NZHC 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2019-463-28

[2019] NZHC 1011

BETWEEN
HIRA NOBLE

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: 8 May 2019

Appearances:

Appellant in person

O M Salt & J M Sutton for Respondent

Judgment:

9 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF PAUL DAVISON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 May 2019 at 4:30 pm Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

NOBLE v R [2019] NZHC 1011 [9 May 2019]

[1] Mr Noble appeals from a decision by Judge Cameron made on 6 March 2019 declining an application by Mr Noble for leave to vacate his guilty pleas to two charges.1

[2] At the Tauranga District Court on 24 October 2018 Mr Noble entered guilty pleas to two charges. He was represented and advised by counsel at the hearing when he entered the guilty pleas. The two charges being:

(a)possession of a psychoactive substance with intent to sell2; and

(b)selling a psychoactive substance.3

[3] On 15 January 2019, prior to his sentencing on the charges, Mr Noble provided Community Probation Services with a letter in which he purported to rescind his guilty pleas, and which was thereafter treated by the Crown and the District Court as being an application to vacate his guilty pleas.

[4] Mr Noble is also facing a number of other drug related charges in respect of which he has pleaded not guilty.

[5] The application to vacate the guilty pleas was heard before Judge Cameron on 22 February 2019. Prior to the hearing Mr Noble’s counsel had been granted leave to withdraw and Mr Noble was thereafter self-represented.

[6] In support of his application Mr Noble provided the District Court with a written memorandum entitled, “Breach Of Te Tiriti O Waitangi Trust 1840 Article I, II, III, and IV”, and stating: “Subject Matters: Special appearance to rescind plea pursuant to Sections 247/253/271/2/5 Te Ture Whenua Maori Incorporations Constitution Regulations 1995.” Although the contents of the document are somewhat difficult to follow it purports to be a special resolution of the Nga Uri Whakatupuranga O Maukoro Maori Incorporation requiring a stay of the proceedings brought against Mr Noble for up to 63 days to allow the matter to be “resolved through te kooti marae

1      R v Noble [2019] NZDC 3790.
2      Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, s 70(1)(c).
3      Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, s 70(1)(a).

processes by May 2, 2019, such te kooti marae being a court of competent jurisdiction…”

[7] After noting the Crown’s opposition to Mr Noble’s application on the basis that he did not have a tenable defence, and the Crown’s submission that Mr Noble’s former counsel had not erred in advising him regarding the entering of his guilty pleas, Judge Cameron said:

[6] At the hearing of the application it became clear that the defendant’s only defence was that he was not subject to the legislation under which the defendant…

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 Noble v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Noble v The Queen [2019] NZHC 1011
Case: [2019] NZHC 1011
Decision Date: 9 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hira Noble appeals against a decision by Judge Cameron declining his application for leave to vacate guilty pleas to two drug related charges. At the Tauranga District Court, Mr Noble entered guilty pleas to possession of a psychoactive substance with intent to sell and selling a psychoactive substance. Mr Noble sought to vacate his guilty pleas on the basis that he was not subject to the relevant legislation and the proceedings should be referred to a “more competent jurisdiction” being Tikanga/Kawa; Customs and Usages. The District Court declined his application. The High Court was required to determine whether the District Court Judge erred in declining Mr Noble’s application. The Court found that Mr Noble failed to show that any of the circumstances warranting the court granting him leave to vacate his pleas were present in his case. The Court also found that the District Court had jurisdiction to deal with the charges at issue and there was no basis to transfer the proceedings to another jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Mr Noble’s appeal.

The Court declined the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.

Orders