TE MONI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 452

TE MONI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZCA 452 [25 September 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA234/2020[2020] NZCA 452BETWEEN WIMARUKI DION DARRIN TE MONIApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentCourt: French, Woolford and Dunningham JJCounsel: Applicant in personS E Trounson for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)25 September 2020 at 9 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for an extension of time to file the application for leave toappeal is granted.B The application for leave to appeal is declined.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by French J)[1] Mr Te Moni was convicted of driving while disqualified following ajudge alone trial before Judge Skellern in the District Court.1 He was sentenced to60 hours' community work and six months' disqualification from driving.21 Police v Te Moni [2019] NZDC 15852; and Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and (3).2 At [16].[2] He appealed his conviction and sentence to the High Court. The appeal wasdismissed by Gordon J.3[3] Mr Te Moni now seeks to appeal to this Court. In order to do so, he firstrequires leave because the proposed appeal would be a second appeal.[4] The application for leave was filed 56 working days out of time. The Crownaccepts that it is not prejudiced by the delay and does not oppose an extension of timebeing granted. We so order.[5] In a minute dated 22 June 2020, Collins J ordered that the application for leavebe determined separately from the proposed appeal and on the papers.4[6] In order to be granted leave to appeal, Mr Te Moni must satisfy us that hisproposed appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or a miscarriage ofjustice may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard.5[7] The argument he wishes to raise on appeal is an assertion of Maori sovereignty.He argues that Maori never ceded sovereignty and therefore the provisions ofthe Land Transport Act 1998 do not apply to him. It is the same argument he advancedin the High Court. Mr Te Moni however says that he was denied the opportunity topresent it properly. In particular, that he was denied the opportunity to addressthe Judge on the Pacific Islanders Protection Act 1875.[8] The threshold for granting leave is a high one. In our view, it is not met in thiscase. The appeal Mr Te Moni wishes to bring is doomed to fail. The Courts haverepeatedly held that arguments based on Maori sovereignty are not tenable.6The Pacific Islanders Protection Act does not assist Mr Te Moni.3 Te Moni v Police [2019] NZHC 2951.4 Te Moni v Police CA234/20, 22 June 2020 at [1]–[2].5 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 237 and 253.6 See for example Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]; Yates v R [2019] NZCA 155 at [8]–[10];Morunga v Police [2016] NZCA 599 at [7]; Phillips v R [2011] NZCA 225 at [7]–[11]; Toia v R[2007] NZCA 331 at [8]–[10]; and Creeks v R HC Auckland A138/00, 6 November 2000 at [7].[9] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent