Reti v Police
[2012] NZHC 1524
•29 June 2012
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: [email protected] )
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 be used by persons living at another address. However, he was a sufficiently regular visitor to be aware of the fact that there was a growing operation happening in another room. Although he may not have been actually pouring the water and tilling the soil himself, it was obvious that he knew that there was an operation taking place where his equipment was being used to assist with the growing operation.
[9] This has raised in my mind the fact that he was involved in the cultivation and that the mere use of his equipment with his knowledge meant that he was in fact involved.
Grounds of appeal
[7] Mr Reti’s grounds of appeal as set out in his Notice of Appeal are:
“1. The Courts and the Police of NZ has no jurisdiction over Maori
Tikanga – section 3, 4, 5 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.
2. No jurisdiction over Mana Whenua.
3. No jurisdiction over Mana Tangata.
4. No jurisdiction over Maori incorporations.
5.The Court is found to be in a 100% opposition to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993/1994 enacted by Parliament of New Zealand, all courts in this country will continue to uphold, enforce and obey the laws passed by the Parliament as they apply to all persons within New Zealand or until Parliament intervenes.
6. No jurisdiction under the Native Title Act 2003.
7.No jurisdiction in, on, under, above or over “the unextinguished Native title in the Native District of Hauraki” – G. Grey Governor New Zealand Gazette 436 17 Nov 1864.
8. The Courts are found to be in 100% opposition to the Imperial Laws
Application Act 1998 section 5-6.”
[8] Mr Reti’s submissions did not expand on the grounds of appeal.
Decision
[9] The argument, in their various forms, that the Courts have no jurisdiction over Maori and that breaches of the law by Maori cannot be prosecuted has been advanced in various ways on numerous occasions and consistently rejected by the Courts. Some of the arguments advanced by Mr Reti were addressed in the following passage from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Toia:[1]
[1] R v Toia [2007] NZCA 331.
[8] ... [The appellant] maintained that the courts of New Zealand did not have jurisdiction over him and that he was entitled to be tried on a marae. He also submitted that he was a “sovereign being” and was not subject to any criminal statute enacted by the Parliament of New Zealand.
[9] The appellant supported his arguments by reference to the Constitution Acts of 1846, 1852 and 1986. His argument also embraced 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. ...
[10] We are satisfied that the appellant’s argument on this point must be
dismissed. In summary:
(a) The crimes with which the appellant was charged are all under the Crimes Act 1961 which, in terms of s 5, applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand and to all acts done or omitted in New Zealand.
(b) The Crimes Act 1961 was enacted by the New Zealand Parliament which has sovereign power to legislate: Berkett v Tauranga District Court [1992] 3 NZLR 206 at 212 – 213 (HC); R v Knowles CA146/98 12 October 1998; Nga Uri O
Te Ngahue v Wellington City Council CA470/03 18
February 2004; R v McKinnon CA240/04 4 May 2005; and
R v Harawira CA180/05 1 August 2005.
(c) This Court’s duty is to apply enactments of the legislature: Hoani Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board [1941] AC 308 (PC) and New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641 at 690 (CA).
(d) The submission that the courts of New Zealand do not have jurisdiction over Maori incorporations, their members or lands vested in such incorporations has been rejected in New Zealand on a number of occasions: see, in particular, the decision of this Court in R v Miru CA65/01 26 July 2001 at [4] – [8] and [19].
...
[10] More recently, in one of the decisions referred to me by Mr Annandale, the
Court of Appeal said:[2]
[2] Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225 at [10].
The New Zealand Parliament has the sovereign power to legislate for criminal offending such as that disclosed in the present appeals. None of the legislation cited by the appellants provides a separate justice system for Maori offenders. While some legislation in New Zealand expressly recognises the customary rights of Maori, the legislation at issue in these appeals does not do so.
The legislation to which the Court was referring is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.
[11] To the same effect are the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Underhill v R3[3] and Wallace v R.[4] An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision in Wallace was emphatically rejected, the Supreme Court describing the arguments as “plainly unsound legally”. [5]
[3] Underhill v R [2011] NZCA 301.
[4] Wallace v R [2011] NZCA 123.
[5] Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2].
[12] The District Court unquestionably had jurisdiction to determine the charge against Mr Reti. The appeal cannot succeed.
Result
[13] The appeal is dismissed.
0
3
1