TE MONI v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2951

TE MONI v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2951 [12 November 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2019-404-347[2019] NZHC 2951BETWEEN WIMARUKI DIONE DARRIN TE MONIAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 11 November 2019Appearances: Appellant, on own behalfS Murphy for the RespondentJudgment: 12 November 2019JUDGMENT OF GORDON JThis judgment was delivered by meon 12 November 2019 at 3.30 pmRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors: Crown Solicitor, ManukauCopy To: The AppellantIntroduction[1] The appellant, Wimaruki Te Moni, was convicted of driving while disqualified1following a judge-alone trial before Judge Skellern in the Manukau District Court on30 July 2019.2 He was sentenced to 60 hours' community detention and six months'disqualification from driving. He appeals his conviction and sentence.[2] Mr Te Moni is self-represented and has not filed any submissions. In his noticeof appeal, he specifies the ground of appeal as "100% Maori sovereignty".Background[3] On 26 September 2018, Mr Te Moni was driving a motor vehicle. He wasstopped by Police at a roadside checkpoint. Subsequent checks revealed thatMr Te Moni was disqualified from driving at the time.[4] Mr Te Moni represented himself at the hearing. He did not challenge theconstable's evidence that he was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver'slicence at the relevant time, nor that he was the driver of the vehicle stopped by theconstable. Instead, he brought to the Judge's attention a document which he believedcreated a valid challenge to the authority of the District Court based on Māorisovereignty. The Judge dismissed Mr Te Moni's submission, noting that:[10] I must, as a District Court Judge, obey [P]arliament and the Courtssuperior to me. Acts of Parliament are binding within [sic] all persons withinthe geographical territory of New Zealand whether Māori or non-Māori. TheCourts of New Zealand must uphold all [A]cts of Parliament as enactedregardless of any attack upon these presumptions or procedures which mighthave led to their enactment. The Land Transport Act 1998 is one such [A]ctof Parliament. [5] Mr Te Moni was accordingly convicted of driving while disqualified.Discussion[6] Mr Te Moni addressed the Court orally. He submitted that the Queen had nojurisdiction or power to override native title. That submission, together with his1 Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(a) and 32(3).2 Police v Te Moni [2019] NZDC 15852.ground of appeal of "100% Maori sovereignty", was, in effect, a challenge to theauthority of Parliament to make and enforce the law he was convicted of breaking.[7] This is a submission which has been rejected by the Courts on a number ofoccasions. Phillips v R was an unsuccessful application to the Court of Appeal forleave to appeal a decision of this Court dismissing Mr Phillips' appeal againstconviction and sentence on a charge of carelessly using a motor vehicle on a publicroad under the Land Transport Act 1998 (the same statute involved in this appeal).3The Court stated:[3] Mr Phillips' application does not raise an arguable question of law, letalone one which by reason of its general or public importance or otherwiseought to be submitted to this Court for determination. The legal foundation forhis argument has been considered and rejected by this Court and also,significantly, by the Supreme Court as plainly unarguable. The leadingdecisions affirm that Parliament is sovereign and its legislation applies to allNew Zealanders irrespective of race. Thus New Zealand Courts are bound toaccept the validity of all statutory enactments including the Land TransportAct, which as Ms Wong submits applies without limitation based onownership, title or status of land and to all "roads" as defined by s 2. It isunarguable that the District Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine thecharge against Mr Phillips.(footnotes omitted)[8] More recently in Morunga v Police,4 the Court of Appeal approved thefollowing statement by the Full Court of the High Court in Creeks v R:5[7] The Court of Appeal has made it clear that the courts are not the forumfor a fundamental challenge to the entire constitutional structure of the countryor for political campaigns of the sort the appellants are waging. Maorisovereignty can be the subject of debate in Parliament. The Waitangi Tribunalmay be prepared to consider it. It can be debated in public meetings or themedia. It may be the subject of lawful protest. But an assertion of Maorisovereignty does not raise a justiciable question. It cannot succeed in thegeneral courts of New Zealand. [9] And finally, the Court of Appeal in Ferri v Police observed that:6[8] The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is undoubtedly of generalor public importance, but it is well settled that arguments challenging thegeneral law-making authority of the New Zealand Parliament cannot succeed:3 Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580.4 Morunga v Police [2016] NZCA 599 at [7].5 Creeks v R HC Auckland A138/00, 6 November 2000.6 Ferri v Police [2018] NZCA 181.a litigant is not entitled to put themselves outside of the law of New Zealand.(footnotes omitted)[10] This Court, like the District Court Judge, is bound by the decisions of the Courtof Appeal and Supreme Court. The authorities are clear that challenges to the Court'sjurisdiction or the authority of Acts of Parliament on the basis of Māori sovereigntyare "plainly unsound legally" and cannot succeed.7[11] Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal.___________________________________Gordon J7 Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]. See also R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14]; andPhillips v R, above n 3, at [3].