JACKSON v MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZCA 68

JACKSON v MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZCA 68 [22 March 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA624/2017[2018] NZCA 68BETWEEN ANTHONY KARAURIA JACKSONAppellantAND MINISTRY OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIESRespondentHearing: 1 March 2018Court: Gilbert, Simon France and Whata JJCounsel: Appellant in personE J Hoskin for RespondentJudgment: 22 March 2018 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Whata J)[1] Mr Jackson pleaded guilty to a charge of obtaining a benefit by selling fish incircumstances where he had no licence to do so. The offending involved in the orderof 250 kilograms of minced paua with a black-market value of $18,890 andapproximately 43 litres of kina roe, valued at $3,472. He was sentenced byJudge Ingram to 12 months' home detention and 300 hours' community work.11 Police v Jackson [2017] NZDC 11268.He appealed against conviction and sentence. This appeal was dismissed by Heath J.2He now seeks leave to bring a second appeal.[2] Mr Jackson claims he had the permission of the local hapu to fish offMotiti Island in accordance with tikanga Māori. He contends regulation of fishing offMotiti Island is in a state of flux and, within the corresponding vacuum, the tikanga ofhis hapu prevailed. He says the Courts below were wrong to dismiss these claims andhe seeks leave to present further oral and written evidence in support of them.[3] Mr Jackson's intended appeal does not raise a matter of general or publicimportance, nor risk a miscarriage of justice if left unaired. The appeal againstconviction has no prospect of success. There is nothing before us to suggestMr Jackson did not fully appreciate the merits of his position when he pleaded guilty.As to sentence, Mr Jackson was afforded an opportunity to present his argument andevidence in support of his tikanga-based claims to Judge Ingram and then to Heath J.His arguments were carefully considered by them. In rejecting those arguments, bothCourts referred to letters of advice from local iwi and hapu organisations deprecatingMr Jackson's actions as breaching tikanga.3 We see no flaw in their reasoning.[4] Accordingly, the application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent2 Jackson v Ministry of Primary Industries [2017] NZHC 1860.3 Ministry of Primary Industries v Noble [2017] NZDC 8354, at [10]-[13]; Police v Jackson, aboven 1, at [7]; and Wells v Ministry of Primary Industries [2017] NZHC 1860 at [16] and [28].