R v Iti - [2007] NZCA 119

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA267/06
[2007] NZCA 119
THE QUEEN
v
TAME ITI
Hearing:6 March 2007

Court:Hammond, O'Regan and Wilson JJ
Counsel:A T Sykes and J M Pou for Appellant

E M Thomas for Crown

Judgment:4 April 2007 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is allowed, and the convictions are set aside.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
Table of Contents

Para No

INTRODUCTION  [1]
The issues on the appeal  [3]
The events of 16 January 2005  [6]
What the case is not about  [12]
What the case is about  [15]
The decision in the District Court  [20]
Was the ātea a public place?  [24]
The discharge of the live rounds  [40]
BUT DID MR ITI DO SOMETHING PUNISHABLE BY LAW?  [52]
Some concluding remarks  [65]
Introduction
[1]       Mr Iti was charged indictably with two counts of unlawful possession of a shotgun in a public place on 16 January 2005. The offences were alleged to have taken place at Reids Road near Ruatoki, and later that day at Tauaarau marae. The charges were laid under s 51(1) of the Arms Act 1983.
[2]       Mr Iti elected to be tried by a Judge alone in the District Court. After a four-day hearing in the Tauranga District Court on 12-16 June 2005, although he was only required to give short reasons, Judge McGuire chose to deliver a fully reasoned judgment on 30 June 2005. Mr Iti was convicted on both charges. He was subsequently fined $300 plus court costs on each charge. He now appeals against his convictions, to this Court. Technically, the reserved judgment of Judge McGuire is a “verdict” for the purposes of this appeal, which accordingly falls to be determined under s 385 of the Crimes Act 1961.
The issues on the appeal
[3]       These charges arose in a most unusual context. On the day in question Mr Iti participated in two wero (challenges) during which he discharged a firearm as part of a historically unique occasion when the Waitangi Tribunal entered the Ruatoki Valley to hear Tuhoe grievances dating from the 19^th century.
[4]       There are two issues on the appeal before us. First, whether the ātea of the Tauaarau marae was, at the material time, a “public place”. Secondly, whether Mr Iti’s acknowledged possession of a firearm was “without lawful purpose”.
[5]       These issues can only be understood in the context of the events of that particular day, to which we now turn.
The events of 16 January 2005
[6]       Tuhoe lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking redress for certain grievances resulting from the confiscation of land and other Crown actions, in the 19^th century.
[7]       On Sunday 16 January 2005 the Waitangi Tribunal, together with Crown representatives, travelled to Ruatoki to commence a week of hearings involving six hapu in relation to the Tuhoe claim.
[8]       Tuhoe constructed a ritual, which in…

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 R v Iti

Details

AGLC: R v Iti [2007] NZCA 119
Case: [2007] NZCA 119
Decision Date: 4 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to review the convictions of Tame Iti, who had been found guilty of unlawfully possessing a shotgun in public places on January 16, 2005. The appeal centered on two issues: whether the ātea of the Tauaarau marae was a public place and whether Iti's possession of a firearm was without lawful purpose. The events leading to Iti's charges involved his participation in two wero (challenges) during which he discharged a firearm as part of a historically unique occasion when the Waitangi Tribunal entered the Ruatoki Valley to hear Tuhoe grievances. The Court found that the ātea of the Tauaarau marae was indeed a public place as it was part of a single unit - the marae - with hundreds of members of Tuhoe and the public present. However, the Court also found that Iti's discharge of live rounds was not a lawful purpose under Tikanga Tuhoe, as the Arms Act itself limited the customary right. The Court concluded that Iti's conduct was designed to intimidate unnecessarily and to shock, but it could not be established that Iti's actions endangered property or persons, or annoyed or frightened any person to the requisite standard. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions were set aside.

Orders