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