Te Moni v Police
[2020] NZCA 452
•25 September 2020 at 9 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA234/2020 [2020] NZCA 452 |
| BETWEEN | WIMARUKI DION DARRIN TE MONI |
| AND | NEW ZEALAND POLICE |
| Court: | French, Woolford and Dunningham JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 25 September 2020 at 9 am |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by French J)
Mr Te Moni was convicted of driving while disqualified following a judge alone trial before Judge Skellern in the District Court.[1] He was sentenced to 60 hours’ community work and six months’ disqualification from driving.[2]
[1]Police v Te Moni [2019] NZDC 15852; and Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (3).
[2]At [16].
He appealed his conviction and sentence to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by Gordon J.[3]
[3]Te Moni v Police [2019] NZHC 2951.
Mr Te Moni now seeks to appeal to this Court. In order to do so, he first requires leave because the proposed appeal would be a second appeal.
The application for leave was filed 56 working days out of time. The Crown accepts that it is not prejudiced by the delay and does not oppose an extension of time being granted. We so order.
In a minute dated 22 June 2020, Collins J ordered that the application for leave be determined separately from the proposed appeal and on the papers.[4]
[4]Te Moni v Police CA234/20, 22 June 2020 at [1]–[2].
In order to be granted leave to appeal, Mr Te Moni must satisfy us that his proposed appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.[5]
[5]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237 and 253.
The argument he wishes to raise on appeal is an assertion of Maori sovereignty. He argues that Maori never ceded sovereignty and therefore the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998 do not apply to him. It is the same argument he advanced in the High Court. Mr Te Moni however says that he was denied the opportunity to present it properly. In particular, that he was denied the opportunity to address the Judge on the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875.
The threshold for granting leave is a high one. In our view, it is not met in this case. The appeal Mr Te Moni wishes to bring is doomed to fail. The Courts have repeatedly held that arguments based on Maori sovereignty are not tenable.[6] The Pacific Islanders Protection Act does not assist Mr Te Moni.
[6]See for example Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]; Yates v R [2019] NZCA 155 at [8]–[10]; Morunga v Police [2016] NZCA 599 at [7]; Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225 at [7]–[11]; Toia v R [2007] NZCA 331 at [8]–[10]; and Creeks v R HC Auckland A138/00, 6 November 2000 at [7].
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly declined.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
1