Hapi v Police

[2015] NZHC 2191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-419-000011 [2015] NZHC 2191

BETWEEN

LEE HAPI

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	9 September 2015
Appearances:	Appellant in person TA Needham for Respondent
Judgment:	11 September 2015

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 11 September 2015 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Almao Douch, Hamilton.

Copy to: Appellant.

HAPI v NZ POLICE [2015] NZHC 2191 [11 September 2015]

[1]      Lee  Hapi  applies  for  leave  to  appeal  out  of  time  against  a  decision  of Judge A I M Tompkins of 10 July 2013 convicting him on one charge of theft of petrol and one charge of possession of a knife.  He was convicted and sentenced to

50 hours community work as the concurrent sentence on both charges.  There was an order for destruction of the knife and an order to pay reparation of $63.24.

[2]      It is not clear from Mr Hapi’s application whether he is appealing conviction or sentence or both, and I will treat the application as being in respect of both conviction and sentence.

[3]      The summary of facts shows that Mr Hapi had driven a car to a petrol station where he pumped $63.24 worth of petrol and then left failing to pay for it.  He was arrested by the Police.   The knife was found in the pocket of the driver’s door. Mr Hapi, when he was spoken to, admitted taking the petrol and possession of a knife, but stated his belief that he was acting legally.

[4]      The interlocutory application, although neatly typed, does not contain an explanation for the delay in seeking leave, or in any coherent way set out any grounds of appeal.   It is clear that Mr Hapi (who refers to himself as His Lordship/Arikinui David Lee Morunga) challenges the jurisdiction of this Court and refers to the “Native Aboriginal Sovereign Parliament/Government” and to the “Colonial Bench”.

[5]      It has been stated many times by this Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that Parliament is sovereign and its legislation applies to all New Zealanders irrespective of race.1  A rejection of the sovereignty of this Court does not raise a justiciable issue. A belief by a defendant or appellant in the right to be judged only by Maori or on a marae is not a ground of appeal.   These are political and

constitutional arguments to be debated in a political forum but not in the courts.

1      See for example Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10, Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225, R v Miru

CA65/01,  26  July  2001,  R  v  Mitchell  CA68/04,  23 August  2004,  R  v  Takao  CA379/03,

15 November 2004, R v Toia [2007] NZCA 331, Nga Uri O Te Ngahue v Wellington City Council CA407/03, 18 February 2004, R v Knowles CA146/98, 12 October 1998, Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580.

[6]      I specifically record that there can be no doubt that the District Court Judge was right to convict Mr Hapi of the charges he faced.  There was ample evidence, including photographic evidence, confirming that he had committed the offences, and the sentence on its face was entirely within the range of sentences available to the Judge.  Mr Hapi is not willing to address his dishonest and anti-social behaviour.

[7]      All persons in New Zealand are bound to accept the laws of New Zealand. Legislation passed by the New Zealand Parliament applies to all New Zealanders irrespective of race.   In the absence of any explanation for the delay in filing this application for leave to appeal, or any discernible defence or answer to the charges, the application must be dismissed.

Result

[8]      The application for leave to appeal out of time is dismissed.

……………………………..

Asher J