Te Moni v Police - [2020] NZHC 119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-347

[2020] NZHC 119

BETWEEN
WIMARUKI DIONE DARRIN TE MONI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

Appellant, on own behalf

S Murphy for the Respondent

Judgment:

11 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me
on 11 February 2020 at 11.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Copy To: The Appellant

TE MONI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 119 [11 February 2020]

Introduction

[1] This is an application by Wimaruki Te Moni for a transcript of the hearing of his appeal against conviction and sentence which proceeded in this Court on 11 November 2019. By judgment dated 12 November 2019 (the judgment) I dismissed the appeal.1

[2] Mr Te Moni had been convicted of driving while disqualified following a judge-alone trial in the Manukau District Court on 30 July 2019. He was sentenced to 60 hours’ community work and six months’ disqualification from driving. The judgment refers to the District Court hearing and Judge’s decision as follows:

[4] Mr Te Moni represented himself at the hearing. He did not challenge the constable’s evidence that he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence at the relevant time, nor that he was the driver of the vehicle stopped by the constable. Instead, he brought to the Judge’s attention a document which he believed created a valid challenge to the authority of the District Court based on Māori sovereignty. The Judge dismissed Mr Te Moni’s submission, noting that:

[10] … I must, as a District Court Judge, obey [P]arliament and the Courts superior to me. Acts of Parliament are binding within [sic] all persons within the geographical territory of New Zealand whether Māori or non-Māori. The Courts of New Zealand must uphold all [A]cts of Parliament as enacted regardless of any attack upon these presumptions or procedures which might have led to their enactment.
The Land Transport Act 1998 is one such [A]ct of Parliament. …

[3] Mr Te Moni again represented himself at the hearing of his appeal. He did not file any written submissions and in his notice of appeal he specified the ground of appeal as “100% Maori sovereignty”. The judgment refers to his submissions as follows:

[6] Mr Te Moni addressed the Court orally. He submitted that the Queen had no jurisdiction or power to override native title. That submission, together with his ground of appeal of “100% Maori sovereignty”, was, in effect, a challenge to the authority of Parliament to make and enforce the law he was convicted of breaking.

…

[10] This Court, like the District Court Judge, is bound by the decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The authorities are clear that challenges to the Court’s jurisdiction or the authority of Acts of Parliament on

1 Te Moni v Police [2019] NZHC 2951.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Te Moni v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 119
Decision Date: 11 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Wimaruki Dione Darrin Te Moni appealed against his conviction and sentence for driving while disqualified, which was dismissed by Gordon J. Te Moni applied for a transcript of the hearing, claiming it was necessary for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice and 100% Māori sovereignty.

The legal issues before the Court included whether Te Moni was entitled to access the transcript of the appeal hearing under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, and whether there were grounds for leave to bring a second appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court found that the rules did not require a transcript to be prepared, and the high threshold for a second appeal was unlikely to be met given Te Moni's grounds.

Gordon J reasoned that the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court had previously rejected challenges to the authority of Parliament and the Court's jurisdiction based on Māori sovereignty. The Court found that providing the transcript would create substantial resourcing difficulties for the Ministry. The Court also noted that Te Moni's prospects for leave to appeal were extremely low, as the Court had simply applied settled legal principles. The application for the transcript was therefore refused.

No further orders were made.

Orders