Tamihere v Police - [2016] NZHC 539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2016-404-017 [2016] NZHC 539

BETWEEN
ROBIN TAMIHERE

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 16 March 2016

Counsel:

R Tamihere, in person, Appellant
J V Barry for Respondent

Judgment:

30 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on
30 March 2016 at 2.30 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland
Copy to:
R Tamihere, Appellant

TAMIHERE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 539 [30 March 2016]

[1] Mr Tamihere appeals against two convictions for contempt and the associated sentences. In brief, Judge Collins found Mr Tamihere in contempt for:

(a) Refusal to take his place in the dock; and

(b) Repeatedly interrupting him.

[2] Mr Tamihere was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment.

[3] Judge Gibson found Mr Tamihere in contempt for calling him a “criminal”. The Judge sentenced Mr Tamihere to 10 days’ imprisonment.

[4] Mr Tamihere appeals, in short, on the basis that the police and the Judge have acted fraudulently in their dealings with him. Mr Tamihere clarified in argument before me that by fraudulent he meant acting unlawfully, without jurisdiction and without authority.

Background

[5] Mr Tamihere was facing charges of breach of the peace and two assault charges. On 17 November 2015, he appeared before Judge Collins. In an oral judgment, Judge Collins observes:1

[1] In terms of the contempt, I do hold you in contempt of court. When you appeared this morning, you appeared with a gentleman who was standing alongside you. I asked him to take a seat. He refused. The courtroom was full of people. It was a very busy case review list.

[2] You advised that you did not recognise the Court and you repeatedly made reference to your name in a way which was exceptionally difficult to understand. You then repeatedly refused to take your place in the dock. You repeatedly spoke over me. You repeatedly interrupted me when I asked you not to and then you remonstrated with the Court before attempting to leave.

[6] Mr Tamihere was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment. No reasons for the

length of sentence were given.

1 Police v Tamihere [2015] NZDC 22900.

[7] On 15 December 2015, Mr Tamihere appeared again in the District Court, this time before Judge Gibson. The Judge describes what he says unfolded as follows:2

[1] The defendant Robin Tamihere appeared with a number of others on charges made in respect of an allegation of a breach of the peace with respect to the entry of property at 77 Cook Street, Auckland and also two assault charges.

[2] He has been remanded several times on these matters and is for the purpose of the proceeding, self represented, although for the purpose of the contempt that I am dealing with, has seen the duty solicitor Ms C A Lintott who has advised him in relation to the matter and conveyed his apology for the…

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 Tamihere v Police

Details

AGLC: Tamihere v Police [2016] NZHC 539
Case: [2016] NZHC 539
Decision Date: 30 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tamihere v Police, Mr Tamihere appealed against two convictions for contempt and the associated sentences imposed by the District Court. The first conviction was for refusing to take his place in the dock and repeatedly interrupting the proceedings, while the second conviction was for calling the Judge a "criminal." The sentences were 14 days and 10 days imprisonment, respectively. Mr Tamihere argued that the police and the Judges acted fraudulently, without proper jurisdiction, and unlawfully. Justice Whata found that the Judges had observed the minimum standards of justice required to convict and sentence for contempt, and the sentences were not manifestly excessive or obviously wrong. The appeal was dismissed.

The court examined the four key issues in determining whether the Judges observed the minimum standards of justice required to convict and sentence for contempt: (a) whether there was a proper factual basis for contempt; (b) whether the Judges identified the act or acts giving rise to the alleged contempt to Mr Tamihere; (c) whether Mr Tamihere was given the opportunity to take legal advice about the alleged contempt; and (d) whether Mr Tamihere was given the opportunity to be heard about the alleged contempt. The court found that the requisite minimum steps were taken for both contempts, and the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or obviously wrong.

Orders