Te Moni v Police

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 Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	French, Woolford and Dunningham JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person S E Trounson for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was presented with an application from Wimarunki Dion Darrin Te Moni, an applicant, against the New Zealand Police, the respondent. The applicant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence for driving while disqualified, a decision originally made by the District Court and subsequently dismissed by the High Court. The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal, considering the delay in filing the application and the argument that Māori sovereignty should negate the applicability of the Land Transport Act 1998 to him.

The Court of Appeal noted that the application for leave to appeal was filed 56 working days out of time. However, the Crown did not oppose the granting of an extension of time. The applicant's argument was based on the assertion that Māori never ceded sovereignty and that the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875 should have been addressed by the Judge. Despite the applicant's contention that he was not given the opportunity to properly present his argument in the High Court, the Court of Appeal held that the threshold for granting leave to appeal was not met. The Court concluded that the applicant's argument was not tenable and that previous cases had established that arguments based on Māori sovereignty were not valid.

In light of the Court's reasoning, the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal was granted. However, the application for leave to appeal was declined. Consequently, the applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence would not proceed to the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established