It is clear that Mr Mihaka is not confused; Mr Dickie is confused. NZ Police and the Courts seem to be also confused.
Two week ago we emailed lawyers Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke thus:
As discussed with you both previously, Dun urgently needs assistance with the proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and apparently hasn't received any response from Nathan Bourke. His evidence is required to be filed in HRRT and is overdue. Dun feels that in addition to HNZC discriminating against him, NZ Police have also discriminated against him, and also the Courts, and there is strong evidence to support this. Attached is page 2 of the Minute of the HRRT dated 8 April regarding the question of whether Mr Gwilliam or Mr Bourke is going to represent Mr Mihaka.
Many people believe that the issue of the major discrepancies in Warren Dickie's evidence - which were apparently not even mentioned at either appeal - warrant further scrutiny because it is clear that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and Dun did not receive a fair trial, as happens to other Maori every day in Courts throughout the country.
Neither Nathan Bourke's file or Brett Crowley's contained the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 June 2014, and neither Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley apparently noticed that the Summary of Facts was in direct contradiction to the evidence that Mr Dickie gave in Court. These serious discrepancies were not addressed at either appeal, not even sighted by Mr Mihaka or his lawyers until very recently, and were vitally relevant to the matter of Mr Dickie's credibility.
Now that we have received a copy of Mr Dickie's original statement to Police it is clear that his evidence is inconsistent to the point of being totally contradictory and simply not credible, and that there is relevant and important evidence which has not been addressed by any of the Courts at which the matter has been filed. It seems that the reason these discrepancies were not brought to the attention of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is that none of the lawyers involved asked Mr Mihaka if he'd ever received Disclosure and if so where it was - the statement the complainant gave to Police and the Summary of Facts are in total contradiction to the evidence given by the complainant on oath and it is unbelievable that this was never brought to the attention of the Court - it is vitally relevant to the credibility of the complainant and it is insulting and abusive that Mr Mihaka continues to be labelled "confused" when it is perfectly clear and absolutely indisputable that the complainant, HCNZ, NZ Police and the Courts are confused!Mr Dickie's statement to Police is at this link. It states that the alleged assault occurred around nine or nine thirty at night, as he was getting ready to go to bed, and that Mr Dickie applied unwanted physical force to Mr Mihaka as Mr Mihaka was asleep. Page 3 of this statement in particular warrants further scrutiny - several aspects of it are in direct contradiction to Mr Dickie's evidence on oath, Mr Dickie would more than likely have been unable to see whether or not one or both of Mr Mihaka's hands were on his throat due to human anatomical vision capabilities for one thing,
The NZ Police Summary of Facts (sic) likewise claims that the alleged incident occurred at around nine to nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was asleep:
- Furthermore, the allegation refers to Mr Mihaka as "Nathan Mihaka" a name he has always rejected and stated that he finds offensive in the extreme, and he believes that Police continue to refer to him by this name deliberately in order to cause ongoing offence - and there is clear and indisputable evidence of this.
- And note how the Police display bias - they ignore the fact that Mr Dickie "tapped him on the shoulder" while Mr Mihaka was asleep - stated in the statement to Police by Mr Dickie but omitted from the Summary of "Facts" (sic).
Now here is the evidence Mr Dickie gave on oath regarding the time this alleged incident occurred - a completely and utterly different version of events - events he now alleges happened "in the morning, when I got up around 7:30 or thereabouts . . . when I . . . turned the jug on to make a cup of coffee":
There is also clear evidence of exaggeration and embellishment on Mr Dickie's part - first Mr Dickie claims that Mr Mihaka applied force to him for "thirty seconds to one minute" and then doubles this for effect to "one to two minutes". When asked what happened immediately afterwards Mr Dickie states he can't remember. This memory failing is a repeated refrain in the evidence given in Court by Mr Dickie - it is clear that Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka, and the fact that Mr Dickie claims to have twice applied force to Mr Mihaka once allegedly at 7 - 7:30 in the morning and again at 9 - 9:30 at night, and is clearly so confused about things that he doesn't know when the incident took place let alone if it took place, clearly establishes REASONABLE DOUBT!
Police should have realised that Mr Dickie was not a reliable witness but they simply arrested Mr Mihaka the minute he opened his door when they knocked, demonstrating the usual politically and racially motivated bias. The email to the lawyers continues thus:
Mr Mihaka has received disrespectful messages from Mr Bourke in the past, some of these messages indicate a clear refusal to accept reasonable instructions from Mr Mihaka, Mr Mihaka was under the impression that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, which is also what Mr Bourke told me, which is in contradiction to the bill Mr Mihaka has received for Mr Bourke's services; notwithstanding that, Mr Mihaka wishes Mr Bourke to finish the proceedings he started in the HRRT and has instructed Mr Bourke to do that.
We also reject the opinion that there is nothing Mr Mihaka can now do to challenge the unjust decision to convict him of assaulting Mr Dickie and formally instruct you to apply for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that the Courts failed to address the major discrepancies and factual errors referred to in the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 July, the prosecution Summary of Facts, and the evidence given on oath by the complainant. To spell it out: Mr Dickie's statement to Police (which Judges wrongly stated was made the day after the alleged assault) and the Summary of Facts (sic) both allege that the 'incident' occurred at around nine or nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was already asleep.
The complainant's evidence in Court was that the assault happened at around seven thirty in the morning after Mr Dickie got up and made coffee and Mr Mihaka was still asleep - NOT at night when Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed - the exact opposite of what he told Police in fact.
Clearly Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka! The only "fact" regarding an assault which is agreed is that Mr Dickie applied force deliberately to Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep.
Then there is the issue of the utterly non factual "information sharing" between NZ Police and Housing New Zealand Corporation and the defamatory allegations that Mr Mihaka "uses methamphetamine" and is a "serious cannabis smoker" and lives in a suspected "P house"! Not to mention the equally untrue allegation made by HNZC ( - when considering whether to evict Mr Mihaka) that Mr Mihaka actually ADMITTED assaulting Mr Dickie - Mr Mihaka has always strenuously DENIED the allegation!
It seems that the relationship between Mr Bourke and Mr Mihaka broke down due to communication issues and misunderstandings. Mr Mihaka and I have done all we can to facilitate the resolution of these matters and facilitate meaningful and constructive communication. We note that Meredith Connell and Mr Gwiliam have been in communication and would appreciate it if Mr Gwilliam would ask Mr Bourke why he has failed to even respond to our messages and schedule an appointment as soon as possible to meet with Mr Mihaka and I as soon as possible, as Mr Bourke has failed to even respond to Mr Mihaka's messages and instructions, and we wish to discuss the issue of his bill, and the fact that he told Mr Mihaka and I that he was acting pro bono.
Mr Mihaka says that he gave Mr Bourke a copy of the book Whakapohane for the specific and explicit purpose of Mr Bourke understanding the legal basis for Mr Mihaka's clear and explicit instructions to Mr Bourke, and the relevance of Mr Mihaka's history of constructive and meaningful peaceful protest and political activism, the relevance of the so called "flag debate" and the fact that over $26,000,000 was apparently spent ignoring the fact that despite the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, John Key completely ignored the fact that OUR flag, Te Kara o Te Whakaputanga, Te Hakituatahi, has never been decommissioned, we have TWO official languages, and TWO official flags, and Maori are being oppressed and treated with bias and prejudice - directly related to the credibility of Mr Dickie and the credibility of Mr Mihaka and the allegations of drug use and criminality. Mr Mihaka also explained to Mr Bourke the relevance of the book to the dialogue between him and Mr Dickie leading up to the alleged incident. Mr Mihaka feels that if Mr Bourke is not going to accept his instruction or even bother communication with us any further regarding these matters, especially when the evidence is so indisputable and the course of action is clearly to apply for a recall of France J's judgment on the grounds that the discrepancies were never addressed and they are directly relevant to the issue of credibility and they were not addressed because the duty solicitor never passed on the Disclosure to anyone, Mr Mihaka would like the book returned as soon as possible please. If none of the lawyers involved are going to apply for the recall of the judgment I will, and I need the book to do that. Mr Bourke's messages to Mr Mihaka are unquestionably disrespectful and inappropriate (he refers to me as a crazy person in one of them), rather than make a formal complaint about this Mr Mihaka would prefer to meet face to face with me, Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to discuss the matter of the HRRT proceedings and the recall of France J's decision, which is more than reasonable in my humble opinion.
Mr Mihaka reiterates his instruction to Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to assist him with the proceedings in the HRRT - the matter is urgent, the date Mr Mihaka's evidence was due to be in has passed and HNZC and NZ Police continue to obfuscate and delay providing vital information such as which Police officer told HNZC the untrue allegations about Mr Mihaka, and what exactly "iwi liaison officer" Michael Tahere told HNZC, who told HNZC that Mr Mihaka admitted the allegations, HNZC continue to aggressively assert - via their tax payer funded lawyers, Meredith Connell, who Mr Gwilliam has been in communication regarding these matters - that HNZC don't need a reason to evict Mr Mihaka while the HRRT ironically accuses Mr Mihaka and I of being "disingenuous" and displaying "a degree of artificiality" in our communications - is is clear that the reason for the eviction was the ALLEGED assault and the false allegations of Police and Mr Dickie! There is a significant degree of artificiality in the evidence against Mr Mihaka and the manner in which he has been treated by NZ Police and the colonial Police/Crown Court legal system which Maori have been unlawfully subjected to since the days of the armed constabulary storming Parihaka, and the numerous ways the Crown have discriminated against Maori and denigrated their credibility and mana since their arrival on these shores - all Mr Mihaka asks is a FAIR hearing and the right to have these serious discrepancies in the case for the prosecution, this NEW EVIDENCE, addressed by the Court, because the alleged assault is CLEARLY the reason for the eviction despite the disingenuous and artificial arguments to the contrary from Meredith Connell and HNZC - who refuse to name the Police officer who told them Mr Mihaka uses methamphetamine and lives in a P house, which no doubt influenced their decisions to instigate the action and continue with it in the face of the evidence that it was unsafe, unsound and unjust to do so.
Mr Mihaka clearly needs a lawyer to explain to the Court and Tribunal what "reasonable doubt" is, this is clearly a very serious miscarriage of justice and Mr Mihaka needs a lawyer to assist him properly, and URGENTLY. Clearly if Mr Mihaka had been in possession of the information that has come to light recently he would have called witnesses, and cross examined witnesses, far more effectively - despite the fact that he should have had a lawyer or at least an amicus, Mr Mihaka was clearly disadvantaged by the fact that despite being a self represented defendant conducting his own defence in his native language, the very sensible suggestion of Judge Hastings that an amicus be appointed was completely ignored by Judge Kelly, and this clearly caused significant disadvantage and prejudice to Mr Mihaka - if he had been in possession of the information he was entitled to under the Criminal Disclosure Act he would have been able to defend himself effectively - this is NOT justice and Maori did NOT sign up to this form of oppressive and unjust "governance"! Mr Bourke has a fiduciary duty to Mr Mihaka, and to the Court and the HRRT, and we insist that he fulfill this duty under the supervision of Mr Gwilliam.
There is also the matter of Police abandoning Mr Mihaka in the middle of the National Park recently, overnight on a narrow and dangerous road verge in freezing cold conditions, without a working phone or any ability to heat his car. This is further evidence of the outrageous harassment of Mr Mihaka by NZ Police - and their CONSCIOUS bias against Maori, and unreasonable, prejudiced and biased treatment of him by certain Police officers. Despite Mr Mihaka complying with compliance conditions Police continue to enforce $800 worth of fines after forcing him to spend the night in freezing conditions - this is outrageous and we request assistance to deal with this latest injustice. Attached are two recent letters from Mr Mihaka's doctors regarding these matters, Mr Mihaka currently has no means of transport and it appears that WINZ have unjustly refused his application for assistance with this, his doctor has written two letters about this unacceptable situation, and we request assistance URGENTLY regarding these matters.
I can be contacted on 021 04 818 93 but can NOT access voice messages reliably at the moment, and by email, we look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding these matters as Mr Mihaka's evidence is now overdue and Police are still not providing the information he is entitled to - attached also is page 4 of 5 of the complainant's statement - Mr Mihaka is entitled to an unredacted copy of this under the Criminal Disclosures Act, Police know this, and it is ridiculous that Mr Mihaka is forced to write endless letters about these matters just to get what he should have been given before he was tried in the Court! Mr Dickie's statement is attached, as are two relevant pages of the transcript of evidence, and it can be clearly seen that while Police and Housing Corp are alleging Mr Mihaka is a "serious cannabis smoker" there is a very serious, significant and absolutely indisputably relevant discrepancy between what Mr Dickie told Police happened and what Mr Dickie then said in Court, and it is clearly Mr Dickie who is confused! Despite Mr Mihaka's ALLEGED actions being described as "inexplicable" by France J - reinforcing the complete lack of any elements such as mens rea or even actus reus - what is inexplicable is why Mr Dickie felt the need to apply physical force to Mr Mihaka when Mr Mihaka was asleep - TWICE if we are to believe both the statement to Police and the evidence given in Court. The use of the word "inexplicable" by France J is extremely apt - Mr Dickie's allegations do not stand up to scrutiny and his memory is clearly confused and selectively vacant. Mr Mihaka attempted to explain to Judge Kelly exactly what he and Mr Dickie were talking about in order to enlighten the Court to the background of the allegation and was repeatedly shut down - the subject of the conversation was vitally relevant and it is unacceptable that Mr Bourke also shut Mr Mihaka down and refused to raise that issue and others as instructed, we insist that he do so without further delay and explain why Mr Mihaka is forced to pay his bill as well as Mr Crowley's when we were under the clear apprehension that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, and it is clear that the matter of the conflicting evidence given by Mr Dickie and the elements of credibility and reasonable doubt were not addressed.
Mr Mihaka's letter to the Supreme Court clearly states his views regarding his legal representation and they do not preclude or prevent Mr Bourke recommencing his action in the HRRT or any of the other requested courses of action. As Mr Mihaka states it is Mr Crowley who he holds mostly responsible for the oversight of the lack of provision of the Disclosure etc. There is evidence that the Disclosure was given to the Duty Solicitor and that it was never given to Mr Mihaka or Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley - and now Police are withholding and redacting the last four lines of it when they finally DO provide it - after considerable delay. It is also clear that the response from the NZ Police to Mr Bourke's letter (attached) regarding the defamatory allegations of HNZC regarding information allegedly received from NZ Police regarding Mr Mihaka is completely unacceptable, and this also needs to be followed up by Mr Bourke. HNZC need to correct the information recorded by Karaka Tuhakaraina in the email to Kathy Furfie, which clearly formed part of the basis for decision making regarding the eviction - Mr Mihaka has NEVER EVER admitted assaulting Mr Dickie - MR DICKIE HAS ADMITTED TWICE APPLYING UNWANTED PHYSICAL FORCE TO MR MIHAKA - WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.
A serious miscarriage of justice has occurred and is being compounded on a daily basis, attached are two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding the situation currently impacting on him due to unjust decisions of a Crown governance system which has been imposed unlawfully on tangata whenua, and continues to discriminate, oppress, incarcerate and kill a growing number of Maori every year, every day, in Crown Courts and Tribunals throughout the country, Mr Mihaka's situation requires addressing urgently and I believe that you have a duty to him - and also to the Court and the HRRT, to assist him with these issues. He was left overnight in the freezing cold on the side of the road over a very minor administrative matter that another officer had given him compliance for due to the trivial nature of the "infringement" and now he is expected to pay $800 - that is NOT justice that is DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE and BIAS against Mr Mihaka and there is strong evidence to suggest that these actions are politically motivated. Personally I feel discriminated against by Mr Bourke referring to me as "some crazy person" - this is completely unacceptable. I'm not crazy, Mr Mihaka is not "confused", a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, there is evidence which has not been considered by the Courts, because it has not been available to Mihaka, who was lawfully entitled to the information, and to a fair trial.
Nga mihi,Attached to this email were seven documents: Two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor, one to Work and Income supporting Mr Mihaka's request for assistance with some minor repairs to his car which he requires to get to his medical appointments, etc, and the other to whom it may concern regarding the actions of Police in leaving Mr Mihaka on the side of the road all night at National Park for a trivial "infringement". Also attached were Mr Dickie's statement to Police, the Summary of Facts, two pages of the Court transcript regarding Mr Dickie's conflicting evidence, the correspondence between lawyer Nathan Bourke and Police regarding the defamatory allegations contained in the claim by HNZC regarding information received from Police regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, and one page of the Minute from the Chairman of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the question of which lawyer is going to represent Mr Mihaka.
for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka
It seems that none of them are. It seems that there's one law for some and another law for others, particularly those more privileged.
|Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka demonstrating the correct way to bow to the Crown|
|A haka boogie exponent tries unsuccessfully to emulate Mr Mihaka's historic statement|