Reti v Police - [2012] NZHC 1524

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2011-419-51 [2012] NZHC 1524

BETWEEN WIREMU RETI Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 29 June 2012

Counsel: Appellant in person with Tiaave Timoti as MacKenzie friend
RB Annandale for Crown

Judgment: 29 June 2012

JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 June 2012 at 4.00 p.m., pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Almao Douch, P O Box 19173, Hamilton for Respondent
(Email: rba@almaodouch.co.nz )

Copy to: Mr W Reti, 106A Bank Street, Thames

WIREMU RETI V NEW ZEALAND POLICE HC HAM CRI-2011-419-51 [29 June 2012]

Introduction

[1] Following a defended hearing before Judge Simpson in the Thames District Court, Mr Reti was convicted of cultivating cannabis. He was sentenced to 100 hours’ community work and ordered to pay analysis costs of $405.

[2] Mr Reti appeals against conviction and sentence. I will set out the detailed grounds of his appeal later in this judgment. However, reduced to their essentials, his position is that the police have no power to act against Maori and the Courts are without jurisdiction to enforce the laws of New Zealand against Maori. It is what is sometimes called the Maori sovereignty argument. It has repeatedly been rejected by the Courts.

[3] There is nothing in the circumstances of this case or the way in which the argument has been formulated to suggest a different outcome.

Judge’s decision

[4] The police executed a search warrant at a house in Thames. Three people were present, one of whom was Mr Reti. Immediately after being told their rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990, Mr Reti told the police he had three cannabis plants in one of the rooms. He then showed the police a small indoor growing operation in a wardrobe in which three small plants were growing. The equipment in the growing room included a lamp. Mr Reti’s fingerprints were found on the lamp shade.

[5] Mr Reti admitted the lamp was his but said he was not growing the cannabis. He claimed that he was just a visitor to the address.

[6] Judge Simpson found the charge proved. Her reasons are summarised in the following passage of her judgment:

[8] However, in this particular case, I think that the charges are proved and my reasons are that Mr Reti was obviously sufficiently associated with the address at 112A Harvey Crescent, as to be there on the premises when the search warrant was executed in November. He was there again when Constable Kerwin returned in December. It is possible that these were isolated visits. He has referred to persons close to him, such as the mother of his children living at that address. So, it is obvious that he did visit from time to time. He has allowed some of his property to be used at that address and it is quite obvious that he may allow various kinds of chattels to…

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 Reti v Police

Details

AGLC: Reti v Police [2012] NZHC 1524
Case: [2012] NZHC 1524
Decision Date: 29 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reti v Police, the appellant, Wiremu Reti, appealed against his conviction and sentence for cultivating cannabis, which was imposed by the Thames District Court. Reti's argument was that the police and courts of New Zealand have no jurisdiction over Maori, which is referred to as the Maori sovereignty argument. This argument has been consistently rejected by the Courts.

The Court was required to decide whether the police and courts of New Zealand have jurisdiction over Maori. The Court examined the relevant statutes, including the Crimes Act 1961, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the Constitution Acts of 1846, 1852, and 1986. The Court also considered the Treaty of Waitangi (the Maori version), the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, and the Native Districts and Native Circuit Courts legislation enacted in the 1850s and 1860s. The Court found that the New Zealand Parliament has the sovereign power to legislate for criminal offending and that the legislation cited by Reti does not provide a separate justice system for Maori offenders.

The Court dismissed Reti's appeal, finding that the District Court unquestionably had jurisdiction to determine the charge against him. The Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have previously rejected similar arguments, describing them as "plainly unsound legally". The appeal is dismissed.

Orders