Yates v R

[2019] NZCA 155

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA659/2018
 [2019] NZCA 155

BETWEEN	RAWDEN JAMES YATES Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Clifford, Katz and Thomas JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person A D H Colley for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	15 May 2019 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

Introduction

1. Rawden Yates, the appellant, was convicted of murder on 17 August 2018 following a jury trial in the High Court at Whangarei.  Mr Yates was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum period of 15 years.[1] 

   [1]R v Yates [2018] NZHC 2600 at [46].

2. Mr Yates now appeals against his conviction.  He does so on the basis, as he put it in his notice of appeal, that he does “not recognise the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Parliament over the unextinguished native aboriginal title”. 

Procedural background

1. In a minute of 19 December 2018 Miller J noted — referring to various authorities — that Mr Yates’ appeal, being based on his challenge to Parliament’s authority to create law, had no realistic prospect of success as it then stood.[2]

   [2]Berkett v Tauranga District Court [1992] 3 NZLR 206 (HC); Manukau v Attorney-General [2000] NZAR 621 (HC); Creeks v R HC Auckland A138/00, 6 November 2000; and Morunga v Police [2016] NZCA 599.

2. The Judge then noted that under s 329(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 this Court may determine an appeal on the papers if it can be fairly determined on the papers and has no realistic prospect of success.  The Judge went on to record that as the ground of appeal outlined in Mr Yates’ notice of appeal had no real prospect of success, it could be fairly determined on the papers and would be dealt with in that way if Mr Yates’ grounds of appeal remained as they were. 

3. The Judge gave Mr Yates 10 working days to file amended grounds of appeal if he wished to preserve the opportunity for an oral hearing.  Mr Yates did not file any amended grounds of appeal.  Accordingly, his appeal is being determined on the papers pursuant to s 329(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Analysis

1. Mr Yates and his victim, Mr Kimble Moore, were both members of the Tribesmen motorcycle gang.  Mr Moore and his partner went to Mr Yates’ address on 17 March 2016.  Methamphetamine was consumed.  Later, Mr Yates left his address with Mr Moore in a motor vehicle.  Sometime afterwards Mr Yates shot Mr Moore three times, once in the chest and twice in the back, killing him.  Mr Yates burnt evidence linking him to the murder.  With the help of an acquaintance he buried the victim’s body in the bush.  The victim’s body was not found until 22 September 2016.

2. At his trial, Mr Yates pleaded self-defence.  That was rejected by the jury. 

3. Mr Yates’ challenge to the jurisdiction and sovereignty of Parliament must be rejected.

4. This case is indistinguishable from several cases in which similar challenges to jurisdiction and sovereignty have been made and rejected.[3]  For example, in Creeks v R, Chambers J (for a full Court of the High Court) said:[4]

   [7]       The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the courts are not the forum for a fundamental challenge to the entire constitutional structure of the country or for political campaigns of the sort the appellants are waging.  Māori sovereignty can be the subject of debate in Parliament.  The Waitangi Tribunal may be prepared to consider it.  It can be debated in public meetings or the media. It may be the subject of lawful protest.  But an assertion of Māori sovereignty does not raise a justiciable question.  It cannot succeed in the general courts of New Zealand. Accordingly, this point should not be submitted to the Court of Appeal.

   [3]See, for example, Morunga v Police, above n 2; Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10; Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225; R v Toia [2007] NZCA 331; and Creeks v R, above n 2.

   [4]Creeks v R, above n 2.

5. Similarly, in Wallace v R the Supreme Court declined leave to an appellant to advance similar Māori sovereignty arguments on the basis they were “plainly unsound legally”.[5] 

   [5]Wallace v R, above 3, at [2].

6. Despite being provided an opportunity to do so, Mr Yates has not raised any other matters that suggest the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or that a miscarriage of justice occurred for any reason. 

Result

1. Mr Yates’ appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent