Hapi v Police [2014] NZHC 2696 (31 October 2014)

Last Updated: 4 November 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI 2014-419-000012 [2014] NZHC 2696

BETWEEN	LEE HAPI Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	31 October 2014
Appearances:	Appellant in Person T C Tran for the Respondent
Judgment:	31 October 2014

_{[ORAL] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J}

HAPI v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZHC 2696 [31 October 2014]

Introduction

[1] On 14 January 2014, following a Judge-alone trial before Judge P R Connell, in the District Court at Hamilton, Mr Hapi was convicted of the following charges:

(a) Assault on a police officer – s 192(2) of the Crimes Act 1961;

(b) Assault on another police officer – s 10 of the Summary Offences Act

1981;

(c) Theft of property – ss 219 and 223(d) of the Crimes Act;

(d) Intimidation and threats – s 21(1)(e) of the Summary Offences Act;

and

(e) Resisting the police – s 23(a) of the Summary Offences Act.

[2] On 18 February 2014, Mr Hapi was sentenced to a term of 11 months’

imprisonment by Judge Connell.

[3] Mr Hapi has filed a notice of appeal. The grounds of appeal are stated as follows:

Constitutions, jurisdictions, legal entity challenge, statement of confidence.

Factual Background

[4] The charges against Mr Hapi arose from an incident that occurred at a petrol station in Huntly. After filling his motorcycle with petrol, Mr Hapi verbally abused staff at the petrol station. He told them that he did not have to pay for the petrol and other items he wished to purchase. He claimed that he was entitled to offset the cost of the petrol and other items against rent which he said was owing to him in respect of the land on which the petrol station is situated.

[5] Mr Hapi left the petrol station, and a short time later he was approached by the police officers. He repeated similar statements to them. They proceeded to

arrest him. In the process, Mr Hapi assaulted one of the officers, causing minor injury to him. He also assaulted the other officer.

[6] The value of the petrol taken was approximately $120.

Submissions

[7] When the matter was called in Court this morning, there was no appearance by Mr Hapi. Both Mr Tran, appearing for the Crown, and the Registrar, checked on his status. I am told that Mr Hapi is no longer in custody. Rather, he is on bail in relation to another matter. Further, the Registrar tells me that Mr Hapi came into the registry some two to three weeks ago. She spoke to him and confirmed with him that his appeal was to be heard today.

[8] I did stand the matter down for 15 minutes to give Mr Hapi the opportunity to appear, and in case he had been delayed by some unforeseen event. There was still no appearance either by him, or on his behalf.

[9] I anticipate from the decision given in the District Court by Judge Connell, and from the notice of appeal, that Mr Hapi was intending to run a Māori sovereignty argument and submit that the District Court had no jurisdiction over him.

[10] Mr Tran, for the Crown, submitted that the New Zealand Parliament has sovereign power to legislate for the criminal offending in respect of which Mr Hapi has been convicted, and that there is no separate justice system for Māori offenders. He argued that the Māori sovereignty arguments advanced by Mr Hapi are legally unsound.

Analysis

[11] The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

[12] I do record that, in any event, it would have failed. The legal foundation for Mr Hapi’s argument has been considered and rejected by the Supreme Court, by the Court of Appeal and by this Court, on a large number of occasions.¹

[13] A belief in the right to be judged only by Māori and according to Māori law is a political and constitutional argument. An assertion of Māori sovereignty does not raise a justiciable issue, and it is a matter for debate in the political forum and not in the courts.²

[14] The legal position is clear. Parliament is sovereign and the legislation it passes applies to all New Zealanders, irrespective of race. The courts in New Zealand are bound to accept the validity of all statutory enactments, and they must seek to apply them in their terms.

[15] It is simply not open to this Court to find that the District Court did not have jurisdiction in respect of Mr Hapi in relation to the charges which he faced.

_{Wylie J}

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.

² Creeks v R HC Auckland A138/00, 6 November 2000.