Warren v Police [2016] NZHC 2413 (11 October 2016)

Last Updated: 21 October 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2016-463-24 [2016] NZHC 2413

BETWEEN	PETER WAIRATA WARREN Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	11 October 2016

_{JUDGMENT OF BREWER J}

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 October 2016 at 11:30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Respondent

(Copy to Appellant in person)

WARREN v POLICE [2016] NZHC 2413 [11 October 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Warren (also known as Mr Te Oneone) appeals against a decision of

Judge LM Bidois in the District Court at Opotiki delivered on 24 December 2015.¹

Following that decision, Mr Warren was tried on one charge of careless driving, on which he was convicted on 9 June 2016 and fined $400.

Background

[2] Judge Bidois’s decision dealt with Mr Warren’s claim that he is not subject to

the law:²

Mr Te Oneone submits that as the rangatira (leader) of hapu Te Oneone through royal prerogative legitimised by Whakapapa (genealogy) he is not subject to the law. To give effect to the legitimisation of this claim Mr Te Oneone wants the Court to convene a hui (meeting) summonsing nominated people including Prince Charles (who was present in New Zealand at the time), Whakatohea Maori Trust Board, representatives of Kingi Tuheitia, the Governor General and the Mayor of Opotiki.

[3] Judge Bidois determined that the District Court did have jurisdiction over the charge of careless driving. If Mr Warren can overturn Judge Bidois’s decision, then it follows necessarily that his conviction for operating a vehicle carelessly must be quashed.

Discussion

[4] Judge Bidois’s (reserved) decision thoughtfully and comprehensively reviewed Mr Warren’s belief in Rangatiratanga and Mr Warren’s genuinely held view that he is not subject to New Zealand law.

[5] Judge Bidois, however, recognised that he is bound by the decisions of higher Courts, as am I. Put simply, in New Zealand, Parliament is the supreme lawmaker and all Judges are bound to give effect to the laws passed by Parliament. Claims that tangata whenua are not subject to the laws of New Zealand are made regularly and

_{are dismissed invariably by the Courts.}

¹ _{Police v Warren DC Opotiki CRI-2015-047-367, 24 December 2015.}

² At [8].

Decision

[6] Mr Warren’s appeal cannot succeed and, having read the file, I dismiss it on the papers.

Brewer J