Unconditional surrender:

More than three years ago, on 31 October 2014, Housing New Zealand Corporation began trying to evict Te Ringa Mangu 'Dun' Mihaka from his home, serving him with a 90 day notice under section 51(1)(d) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, on the basis of a false allegation from another tenant, fuelled by the prejudice and bias of NZ Police.

On 2 December 2014 the Tenancy Tribunal issued an order terminating Mr Mihaka's tenancy and granting possession to Housing New Zealand Corporation from noon the following day, 3 December.  Mr Mihaka was approximately 73 years old at this time.

Nearly 3 years later, on 2 November 2017, Sir David Carruthers issued a carefully worded Minute. following the hearing of an appeal of the decision of the Tenancy Tribunal.  Our response was to challenge the 'Minute' of Judge Walker which is referred to in Judge Carruthers's Minute, inter alia (among other related matters which we are challenging in the various Courts and Tribunals established by the colonial governance structure).  During the hearing it also came to light that Housing New Zealand Corporation had issued not one but two eviction notices, which raised some interesting questions (explored in more detail at the link above).

Preceding this hearing, on 2 October 2017, Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote to Mr Mihaka with an offer of settlement, which was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all his Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation, and promising not to take any further Court action against Housing New Zealand Corporation.  Rather ironic, as it was Housing New Zealand Corporation who initiated the litigation in the first place, and played hardball all the way down the line, until long after they realised there was more to these matters than met the eye.

On 28 November 2017 Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote another letter to Mr Mihaka, to say that he can remain in his home, regardless of the conditions proposed in the offer of settlement the previous month, as wisely indicated by Judge Carruthers.

While there is still a very long way to go to any real justice regarding these matters, as documented on this website, we have reached a significant milestone.  The manner in which we have achieved our goals thus far and gained so much ground is much more significant.  We will continue to fight for our rights, and fight for justice and fiduciary accountability, for as long as it takes.

"Justice the seed, peace the flower" - the words on Dun's chosen shirt of the day.

Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

The Human Rights Review Tribunal recently cited two interesting precedents in the matter of Mihaka v Housing New Zealand Corporation.  The first one is cited in the Minute dated 13 October 2016 (copied below for ease of reference) - the Tribunal cites Mihaka v Police 1981 1 NZLR 54.

 

 What's interesting here is that the Tribunal didn't have any problem addressing Mrs Raue as Maori Agent in its Minute dated 9 June 2016, as evidenced below:

The Minute of the HRRT dated 9 June 2016 clearly states "REPRESENTATION:  Mr TRMN Mihaka in person assisted by Ms K Raue, Maori Agent" -

Mr Mihaka, as a descendant of the original inhabitants of this land, he uri o nga tangata whenua, has the sovereignty, te tino rangitiratanga, to appoint a person of his own choosing to speak for him.

Tangata whenua have always had the right to appoint a kaikorero of their own choosing, and it is ridiculous to assert that the quasi colonial 'government' acting on the questionable and ultra vires authority of a treaty claimed by the English to grant them all our mana and all our tino rangitiratanga by some sleight of hand smoke and mirrors.

Mr and Mrs Mihaka cite the Law Practitioners Act 1955, which refers to the role of Maori Agents but does not define the role.  In fact the 'Maori Agents' who claimed authority under this Act were infamous for cheating Maori out of their land - which is likely why attempts are being made to expunge all evidence from the historical record and pretend it didn't happen.

So let's have a closer look at Mihaka v Police 1981 - did the Crown attempt to trick Mr and Mrs Mihaka by the use of clever legal language?  Here are the relevant paragraphs, the problem's not that hard to spot - there's a question of law here:

Mrs Mihaka's trial was not in the High Court, it was in the District Court - she was charged with Wilful Damage.  Barristers don't normally bother with District Court work, they stick to High Court work, and they are required to be instructed by solicitors normally.






This decision cites sections 13 and 14 of the Law Practitioners Act 1955 - it completely ignores the infamous section 17 - which relates to solicitors and Maori Agents:

The role of McKenzie Friend is often misunderstood - the original McKenzie Friend is Ian Hangar QC - an Australian barrister, and a qualified barrister at the time of his involvement in the McKenzie case.  Not a layman at all.  It seems there are currently moves underway to 'reform' the role of McKenzie Friends in NZ Courts.

Why this is important is because Dun was royally ripped off by the two pettifoggers assigned by Legal Aid to conduct his appeals - neither of the two lawyers noticed he'd not been provided with Disclosure - let alone what that Disclosure contained - and let alone bring this to the attention of the appeal Court. Dun's been billed around eight thousand dollars for this incompetence, and would like to point out that he finds pettifogger Brett Crowley the more culpable of the two, Nathan Bourke slightly less so.

And then just when you think you've got it sussed you find the Hardie Boys decision.

Application for recall of decision - Minute of Kos P November 2016:

 In late October 2016 Dun Mihaka's Maori Agent applied for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that fresh evidence has become available and there was indisputable evidence of a substantial miscarriage of justice: 

"We wish to urgently apply for recall of the decision of the Court of Appeal on the grounds that fresh evidence has recently been obtained which is evidence that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, and it has been confirmed that Mr Mihaka never received any Disclosure according to the Criminal Disclosure Act.

Judge Hastings recommended an amicus be appointed but the trial Judge (Kelly) decided not to do so - Mr Mihaka was a self represented litigant forced to represent himself because he couldn't afford to pay back a legal aid loan for something he was innocent of, he conducted his hearing in Te Reo, he was NOT properly warned of the consequences of giving evidence himself, or the fact that he didn't need to and at the end of the case for the prosecution the Judge should have realised that the evidence given on oath did not stack up against the Summary of Facts or the complainant's statement to Police, which are both attached.  The only agreed fact is that the complainant inappropriately touched Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep - twice according to the information provided by Police recently.

Judge Kelly shut Mr Mihaka down repeatedly as he tried to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and this was recognised by France J in his decision - if he had been allowed to cross examine adequately and provided with Disclosure these discrepancies might have been addressed!

I refer to paragraph 5 of this decision which states that the alleged incident occurred in the morning just after the complainant woke up and made coffee as described in the first four lines of para 5.  Attached is the statement of the complainant to Police and the Police Summary of Facts, both of which directly contradict the assertion in para 5 of the decision.  Both these documents state that the alleged incident occured at night as the complainant was going to bed - not in the morning when he got up - and on two different dates - as well as the date in the Police officer's notebook which is different again!

There is strong evidence of collusion between Housing New Zealand Corporation and Police regarding this matter, which is also currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, who have recently suggested sending it back to the District Court, and Mr Mihaka's lawyer has written to Police regarding defamation and slander after Housing New Zealand Corporation claims that they received information from Police regarding this matter which led them to evict Mr Mihaka - it is clear that the source of information was the complainant, not Police, and Police now DENY HNZC's claims - it is indisputable from an examination of the attached documents that this conviction is unsound, and that if Mr Mihaka had been provided with Disclosure as he was entitled, and properly warned about the consequences of giving evidence himself, he would have been in a position to cross examine the complainant effectively during the case for the prosecution, and ask for the charge to be dismissed prior to presenting ANY defence!

Finally, Maori have a tradition of oral information, not written, and we request the opportunity to present our case in person, orally, to the Court.  Mr Mihaka is seventy five years old and not able to write his entire claim down and we should not have to - both appeal lawyers should have realised that he had never received the Disclosure, and the discrepancies therein should have been addressed at the earlier appeals!  Both Mr Mihaka and I have very limited resources available to us, adding further difficulties to the requirement that we put our entire case in writing - this matter is currently before the HRRT and is URGENT.  We respectfully request a hearing, and a recall of this decision - France J was unaware of these documents and so was Mr Mihaka.

Katherine Raue

Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka."

__________________________________________________

The Crown opposed our application for recall, their memorandum is at this link.

__________________________________________________

We recently received the Minute of Kos P of the Court of Appeal.

___________________________________________________________