Judge Collins at Wellington High Court 20 November 2017:

Former Solicitor General David Collins heard the matter of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka v Human Rights Review Tribunal and Housing New Zealand Corporation in the High Court at Wellington today (20 November 2017).

At twenty past four Judge Collins issued a Minute which can be read at this link.

It says that under the High Court Rules Mr Mihaka seeks to appeal a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Housing New Zealand [Corporation] have sought security for costs in relation to the appeal, Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent opposed the application for security for costs on the grounds that Mr Mihaka is impecunious.

Judge Collins then noted the matters involving Mr Mihaka's lawyers, which are under
investigation by the Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Police.

Judge Collins noted that Mr Mihaka's efforts to secure the services of a lawyer had been "futile".

Judge Collins mentions "a tranche of litigation" involving Mr Mihaka's dispute with Housing New Zealand Corporation.  He then goes on to say that in the Court's assessment it is better to have these matters properly ventilated as expeditiously as possible.  He has allocated a one hour fixture on 28th February,

Mr Max Clarke-Parker for Meredith Connell on behalf of Housing New Zealand did his job.  Mr Mihaka and his agent enjoyed a korero with Mr Clarke-Parker after our appearance before Judge Collins, this korero was very constructive.

Of particular note were the actions of the young(ish) security guards at the High Court today.  While the more mature guard, Richard, was downstairs these young oafs told Mr Mihaka he couldn't take "that" in to the Court, pointing at his tokotoko (walking stick).

When Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent questioned this, and asked if the guards enforced this ban on everyone using a walking stick or just our 'Maori' kaumatua, the guard replied that it wasn't the actual walking stick he was referring to as "that", it was the flag thereon.

When Mr Mihaka and the Maori Agent expressed incredulity at this and asked the guard what was so bad about the flag he replied "Well we can't have him waving it around in there."

The Maori Agent said "We'll see about that" and went to the Courtroom to tell the Judge that Mr Mihaka had been detained in the Court foyer.

The guard then entered the Courtroom, and asked to see Judge Collins out the back - it was already a chambers list hearing.  After the little tete a tete they returned and Judge Collins said it was fine for Mr Mihaka to bring his toko toko and his flag into the Court which we did, without further incident.

The 1835 flag has never been decommissioned, and according to Te Tiriti o Waitangi tangata whenua are guaranteed unrestricted use of and access to ALL our taonga, including our flag.

Ironically, the Court coat of arms features a (usually blonde) female holding a British flag, and a Maori gentleman holding a taiaha.

Our tipuna Hone Heke chopped down the flagpole three times because the British refused to honour our flag - our taonga - and fly it alongside the British flag of "New Zealand" - a country allegedly named by a Dutchman who never set foot on this land!

John Key spent twenty six million dollars trying to con everyone into thinking 'New Zealand' only had one flag - we need to honour the original flag and honour the treaty.

High Court Submissions on appeal:

Weapons of law

Submissions regarding appeal to High Court of decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal

CIV-2017-485-736

1.     The appellant appealed the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal for good reasons.  The appellant is 76 years old and due to issues including his health and a new road route between his home in Paraparaumu and the Court in Poneke he was late to the last Court fixture although he made every effort to be present for the Court sitting.

2.    At that sitting the Human Rights Review Tribunal were apparently struck out or removed as respondents.  The appellant strongly opposes this and reasserts his appeal of the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal dated 4 April 2017.

3.    Page 47 of the transcript of the hearing of the Human Rights Review Tribunal shows that the hearing reconvened on that the 4th April following the recusal of Ken Shirley the previous day. 

4.    Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Mr Mihaka successfully applied for the recusal of Ken Shirley over the racist rant he wrote in the Herald the Chairperson, Rodger Haines QC, drafted in a Ms Wendy Gilchrist for the second day of the hearing.

5.    It was entirely inappropriate for Ms Gilchrist to take up her position at such late notice and with such a lack of prior knowledge of the matters under consideration, half way through the hearing.  The decision to recuse Mr Shirley validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

6.    Mr Mihaka, and his Maori Agent, both awoke on the 4th feeling generally unwell, with a range of influenza-like symptoms.  Mr Mihaka contacted his doctor to arrange an appointment as soon as he could, and notified the Tribunal as soon as he could.

7.    Following visits with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absences and other related matters.

8.    Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued a decision which breaches natural justice and breaches Mr Mihaka's rights.

9.    The Tribunal is not entitled to know private details of Mr Mihaka's medical conditions and has no right to require the information.  Mr Mihaka contends that the letters from his registered medical practitioners are sufficient evidence of the fact that he was too unwell to attend the hearings.  His doctors simply did not know when he will be well enough to attend.

10.    Mr Mihaka is currently pursuing a number of legal avenues in order to correct what is clearly and indisputable a serious miscarriage of justice, and again applies to have the decision of the appeal judge, Simon France, recalled.

11.    Judge Kelly is refusing to recall her decision and is completely ignoring the fact that a serious miscarriage of justice occured on top of the errors previously identified during the appeals, in that Mr Mihaka never received Disclosure as he is legally entitled to under the Criminal Disclosures Act 2008.  Judge Kelly completely ignored this Fact in her refusal to grant a rehearing or recall her decision and this is clearly a breach of natural justice.

12.    Other Courts have recently noted the blatant injustices involving these matters and we wish to make further submissions kanohi ki te kanohi, face to face, in the High Court on 20 November if Mr Mihaka is well enough to attend and able to get there in time by 10 a.m.  

13.    Mr Mihaka is suffering further prejudice as a result of the actions of lawyers Chris Tennet, Seth Fraser, Brett Crowley and Nathan Bourke which are subject to formal complaint and include complaints involving refusal of counsel to provide information, forgery of Court documents, attempts to pervert the course of justice, and other very serious allegations.

14.    Mr Mihaka intends providing further evidence from his medical practitioners regarding his health and his right to privacy.   He is also appealing several other decisions of the Court based on sound grounds of appeal, after the failure of his counsel to do so as instructed.

15.    Housing New Zealand Corporation made an offer of settlement to Mr Mihaka but it was unfair in that it was conditional on Mr Mihaka withdrawing all Court action against them and agreeing not to take any further action.  There has been a serious miscarriage of justice.  Housing New Zealand Corporation is maintaining their claims based on false information, and they continue to refuse to correct false and erroneous information regarding Mr Mihaka, information on which they based their decisions.  Mr Mihaka is certainly not going to relinquish his legal rights to have that information corrected and have the injustices associated with this matter put right.

16.    Recent revelations contained in a bundle of documents provided for a hearing in Porirua District Court raise issues of retaliation by Housing New Zealand Corporation in response to Mr Mihaka requesting information be corrected and availing himself of his other legal rights and basic human rights, in addition to the discrimination evident in their actions and decisions.

Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

Minute of Sir David Carruthers, Porirua District Court:

Following a hearing in the Porirua District Court, Judge Sir David Carruthers has issued a Minute.

We acknowledge the respect and fairness shown by Sir David during our hearing, and in granting it in the first place without requiring the over $200 "security for costs" which was previously requested by the Court, and in the careful and considered wording of his Minute.

A few days prior to the hearing Housing New Zealand Corporation made an Offer of Settlement to Dun, offering to let him stay in his home if he withdraws all his Court actions against Housing New Zealand and promises not to take any further legal action against them.

The problem is that Housing New Zealand Corporation have slandered and defamed Dun and continue to refuse to correct information that is clearly false, and they continue to act in bad faith towards him.  Dun wore a shirt featuring the Palestinian flag, and the words "Justice the seed, peace the flower."  Without truth, there can be no justice, without justice, there can be no peace.

Housing New Zealand Corporation started all this by initiating litigation against Dun in the first place.  They did so on the basis of a tissue of lies and misinformation which amounts to slander and defamation.

Judge Carruthers' Minute further highlights the fact that the law is an ass.  It is not fit for purpose.

The Labour Party pledged to abolish "no cause terminations".

Dun's Maori Agent has requested a copy of the Minute of Judge Walker which is referred to in the Minute of Judge Carruthers, and have responded as follows:

We respectfully submit that there were procedural failures in the manner in which the possession order was originally granted, and draw to the Court's attention section 51(6) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 which says that a notice can only be issued if the former one is revoked (attached).

We respectfully request the Court to consider that in accordance with section 51(6)(b) in particular the application of 21 November 2014 would have negated the earlier application of 31 October 2014, which was later relied on (as per paragraph 10, 19-25, of Judge Carruthers' Minute) after Housing New Zealand Corporation repented of their earlier discriminatory and deeply unjust decision to evict Mr Mihaka on the basis of allegations and information which can not be relied on, and which has been proven to be untrue and unreliable. 

We ask the Court to consider the proposition that according to section 51(6)(b) the initial, original notice, which was made under section 51(1)(d), would have had to have been revoked prior to the application of 21 November, made under section 56(1), and could not therefore be relied upon to grant possession.

We will be appealing the decision of Judge Walker and providing evidence as to the error of the decision that the allegations of Housing New Zealand Corporation were irrelevant to the eviction, and responding further to these matters in the near future.