Te Moni v Police

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

The case of Te Moni v Police involved an appeal by the appellant, Wimaruku Dion Darrin Te Moni, against his conviction and sentence for failing to stop and driving recklessly. The case was heard by the High Court of New Zealand in Auckland, with Judge Downs delivering the judgment on 27 September 2018. The appellant, who was self-represented, contested the conviction and sentence imposed by Judge Recordon, which included 40 hours of community work, nine months of supervision, and a 12-month disqualification from driving. The appellant argued that the conviction was the result of unlawful police actions and that there were errors in the transcript of the original hearing, though he admitted he could not recall what was missing. He also argued that Māori sovereignty had not been ceded, which was previously rejected by the courts.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether the police actions were unlawful and whether there were errors in the transcript that would warrant a new trial. The court also had to determine if the appellant's argument about Māori sovereignty had any merit and if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the evidence presented and the arguments made by the appellant, finding that the police had the authority to pursue the appellant and that the transcript was complete enough for the purposes of the appeal. The court also reiterated that arguments about Māori sovereignty are not valid in a court of law, as the courts must enforce the laws enacted by Parliament. Additionally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that there was no basis for revisiting it.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the prosecution's evidence established the charges and that there were no errors in the transcript that would warrant a new trial. The court also found that the argument about Māori sovereignty was not valid and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The conviction and sentence imposed by Judge Recordon were upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established