Te Moni v Police - [2019] NZHC 2951

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-404-347

[2019] NZHC 2951

BETWEEN
WIMARUKI DIONE DARRIN TE MONI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 11 November 2019

Appearances:

Appellant, on own behalf

S Murphy for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 November 2019 at 3.30 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, Manukau Copy To: The Appellant

TE MONI v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2951 [12 November 2019]

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Wimaruki Te Moni, was convicted of driving while disqualified1 following a judge-alone trial before Judge Skellern in the Manukau District Court on 30 July 2019.2 He was sentenced to 60 hours’ community detention and six months’ disqualification from driving. He appeals his conviction and sentence.

[2] Mr Te Moni is self-represented and has not filed any submissions. In his notice of appeal, he specifies the ground of appeal as “100% Maori sovereignty”.

Background

[3] On 26 September 2018, Mr Te Moni was driving a motor vehicle. He was stopped by Police at a roadside checkpoint. Subsequent checks revealed that Mr Te Moni was disqualified from driving at the time.

[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. …

[5]Mr Te Moni was accordingly convicted of driving while disqualified.

Discussion

[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

1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and 32(3).
2 Police v Te Moni [2019] NZDC 15852.

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.

[7] This is a submission which has been rejected by the Courts on a number of occasions. Phillips v R was an unsuccessful application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal a decision of this Court dismissing Mr Phillips’ appeal against conviction and sentence on a charge of carelessly using a motor vehicle on…

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: [2019] NZHC 2951
Decision Date: 12 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Wimaruki Te Moni, was convicted in the Manukau District Court of driving while disqualified and subsequently appealed both the conviction and the sentence to the High Court. Te Moni, who represented himself, did not challenge the evidence against him but rather argued that the court lacked jurisdiction based on "100% Maori sovereignty." The central legal issues before the Court were whether Te Moni's assertion of Maori sovereignty could challenge the authority of the District Court or the validity of the Land Transport Act 1998.

The Court examined previous case law on the matter, noting that arguments challenging the law-making authority of Parliament based on Māori sovereignty have been consistently rejected. The Court referenced the Court of Appeal's decision in Morunga v Police and the High Court's ruling in Creeks v R, which affirmed that the courts are not the appropriate forum for such challenges. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in Ferri v Police highlighted that litigants cannot exempt themselves from the law of New Zealand based on sovereignty arguments. The Court concluded that these authorities established that challenges to the Court's jurisdiction or the authority of Acts of Parliament based on Māori sovereignty are legally untenable.

Given the established case law, the High Court upheld the decision of the District Court. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence remained in effect.

Orders