Te Moni v Police
[2018] NZHC 2526
•27 September 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CRI-2018-404-000208
[2018] NZHC 2526
BETWEEN WIMARUKU DION DARRIN TE MONI
Appellant
AND
NEW ZEALAND POLICE
Respondent
Hearing: 24 September 2018 Appearances:
Appellant in person
LP Radich for Respondent
Judgment:
27 September 2018
JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J
This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 27 September 2018 at 11 am.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Manukau. Copy to: Appellant.
TE MONI v POLICE [2018] NZHC 2526 [27 September 2018]
[1] Judge Recordon found Mr Wimaruku Te Moni guilty of failing to stop and driving recklessly. The Judge sentenced Mr Te Moni to 40 hours’ community work, nine months supervision, and disqualified him from driving for 12 months. Mr Te Moni appeals conviction and sentence. He is self-represented, as he was in the District Court.
[2] The facts are simple. On 1 January 2018, Mr Te Moni was riding a motorbike through Pokeno. Constable Martin Carroll was operating a radar detector. He said Mr Te Moni came towards him at 74 kilometres per hour in a 50 kilometre per hour area. Constable Carroll activated the lights of his Police car. Mr Te Moni did not stop. Indeed, he accelerated. Once on the open road, Mr Te Moni reached speeds of approximately 165 kilometres per hour. Mr Te Moni bypassed a road block, wove through traffic and failed to stop at a red light. Mr Te Moni was apprehended on Alfriston Road, 29 kilometres from where he was first noticed by Constable Carroll.
[3] Mr Te Moni gave evidence. In evidence-in-chief, he read a brief passage from a decision of the Court of Appeal about Police powers.1 In cross-examination, Mr Te Moni accepted he was the driver. To the extent Mr Te Moni offered a defence, it was that he had been endangered by the Police pursuit. Judge Recordon was satisfied the ingredients of the offence were established to the criminal standard.
[4] Mr Te Moni’s appeal notice implies conviction is challenged because of Police illegality in the detection of the offence. However, this issue was not explored with prosecution witnesses, apart from a handful of questions about whether Constable Carroll had authority to give chase. On the evidence, he plainly did.
[5] Mr Te Moni’s written material in support of the appeal contends Police actions were unlawful as the offence provisions are invalid, because of Māori sovereignty. Courts have repeatedly held arguments of this nature cannot succeed.2 This because Courts must give effect to the laws enacted by Parliament, including the Land Transport Act 1998, the statute governing the applicable offences.
1 R v Jefferies [1994] 1 NZLR 290.
2 See, for example, Philips v R [2013] NZCA 580 at [3].
[6] Through polite oral submissions, Mr Te Moni contends a miscarriage of justice had occurred because the transcript contained some passages in which a question or answer of Mr Te Moni had not been recorded. However, this happened on a few occasions only, and Mr Te Moni accepted he could not recall what was missing. The hearing was three months ago (in June 2018). If something important was missing, it is likely Mr Te Moni would recall it. Moreover, the transcript presents as complete. And the case simple.
[7] Mr Te Moni is also concerned he has been “mucked around” by the District Court in relation to his application for a suspension of disqualification pending this appeal. While important to Mr Te Moni, this issue does not affect his conviction appeal: an application to suspend disqualification says nothing about whether the underlying convictions should have been entered, or are founded on evidence.
[8] Mr Te Moni’s final submission in relation to conviction is that Māori have not ceded sovereignty. I have already addressed this argument; see [5].
[9] Implicit to this brief discussion is the proposition the prosecution’s evidence established the charges though admissible evidence.
[10] As to sentence, the appeal notice implies hardship is advanced. But, Mr Te Moni did not pursue the point at the hearing. My questions about Mr Te Moni’s personal circumstances did not reveal a basis for revisiting the sentence, or finding it manifestly excessive.
[11]The appeal is dismissed.
……………………………..
Downs J