Tito v Police - [2023] NZHC 1235

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV 2022-488-74

[2023] NZHC 1235

BETWEEN KEVIN-JOHN TITO and TUI-DOROTHY TITO
Appellants

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 May 2023

Appearances:

The appellants in person

J Golightly for the respondent

Judgment:

24 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 May 2023 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

TITO and TITO v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1235 [24 May 2023]

[1] Mr and Mrs Tito had their firearms licences revoked by the Police under ss 27 and 28 of the Arms Act 1983. They appealed against the revocation to the District Court. Judge D J Clark dismissed their appeal.1 Mr and Mrs Tito wish to make a further appeal to this Court.

[2] An appeal to this Court is limited to questions of law and can be brought only with leave. Mr and Mrs Tito say the questions of law that would be raised on their proposed appeal are:

(a)Is there a conflict between the Arms Act 1983 and the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988?

(b)Is the Parliament of New Zealand able to legislate over Māori where land has been declared and adjudicated to be unextinguished native title?

(c)Is there a conflict between the Arms Act 1983 and tikanga Māori?

Representation

[3] Mr and Mrs Tito represent themselves. They were accompanied at the hearing by Mr Samuels. They asked that Mr Samuels speak on their behalf. Mr Samuels is not a lawyer. He told me he had nonetheless assisted Mr and Mrs Tito to prepare the documents that they had filed and that he would be better placed to speak to their arguments than they would. Mr and Mrs Tito told me they agreed.

[4] After hearing briefly from Ms Golightly, who appeared for the Police, I allowed Mr Samuels to speak on behalf of Mr and Mrs Tito. I considered this was likely to be of more assistance to me than hearing directly from Mr and Mrs Tito. I asked Mr Samuels to confirm that the three questions of law proposed by Mr and Mrs Tito were as set out in [2]. He confirmed that was the case, and briefly explained Mr and Mrs Tito’s position on each question.

1 Tito v New Zealand Police [2022] NZDC 16431.

Background

[5] Mr and Mrs Tito have been involved in litigation in the Māori Land Court for some years. They have received adverse decisions from that Court. They have been displeased with those decisions. Their displeasure has sometimes manifested itself in aggression towards staff of that Court.

[6] On 9 March 2021, Mr and Mrs Tito went to a registry of the Māori Land Court. There were heated discussions between Mr and Mrs Tito and staff at that Registry. The staff alleged that Mr and Mrs Tito became abusive. One of the staff said he was subjected not…

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.

Continue reading Tito v Police

Details

AGLC: Tito v Police [2023] NZHC 1235
Case: [2023] NZHC 1235
Decision Date: 24 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tito v Police, Kevin-John Tito and Tui-Dorothy Tito sought to appeal the revocation of their firearms licences by the New Zealand Police under the Arms Act 1983. They argued that the revocation was unlawful due to alleged conflicts with the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, the ability of the New Zealand Parliament to legislate over Māori land, and tikanga Māori. The District Court dismissed their appeal, and they sought to appeal to the High Court. The court had to determine whether to grant leave for the appeal and, if so, what the legal questions were that could be considered. The Titos argued that the Arms Act was invalid because it was not specified in the Imperial Laws Application Act, that Parliament could not legislate over Māori land, and that tikanga Māori took precedence over the Arms Act. The court found that these arguments were not arguable and would not arise on the appeal. The Imperial Laws Application Act did not apply to the Arms Act, which is an enactment of the New Zealand Parliament, not subordinate legislation under an Imperial enactment. The court also found that the Parliament of New Zealand has full legislative power over all persons within New Zealand, including Māori, and that the recognition of unextinguished Māori customary interests does not limit this legislative power. Lastly, the court found that tikanga Māori did not apply as the District Court did not consider it and the Titos did not rely on it in their appeal. Given these findings, the court declined to grant leave to appeal and ordered the Titos to pay the Police's costs of $3,295.50.

The application for leave to appeal is declined. Mr and Mrs Tito are to pay the Police costs of $3,295.50.

Orders