Decision of Human Rights Review Tribunal:

Behold - the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Curious in many ways.  Not least the assertion that the McKenzie Friend was required to turn up and speak on behalf of the Plaintiff and provide a 'proper' medical certificate.  How ridiculous.  And what an outrageous breach of natural justice, on top of the existing miscarriage of justice.

Mr Mihaka is appealing this decision to the High Court.

Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

"Justice the seed, peace the flower."  T-shirt of the day.

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 rather 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 noticed he'd not been provided with Disclosure - let alone what that Disclosure contained.

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

April Fool - Transcript of proceedings - Human Rights Review Tribunal 4th April 2017:

Following the stress of the hearing on the 3rd April 2017 at which Dun successfully forced 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.

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, and validated the earlier applications for Mr Shirley's recusal, which had been previously refused by Mr Haines.

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.'

Following the visit with his doctor, Mr Mihaka forwarded the required medical certificate to the Tribunal in support of the validity of the reason for his absence on the 4th.

Despite providing valid medical certification that he was too unwell to attend the sham hearing on the 4th April, Haines issued the following decision:



The file can also be accessed at this link.

The transcript of the hearing on the 4th begins at page 47 of the transcript.

The transcript is full of factual errors - the paragraph adjacent to the number 20 in the left margin says that Haines would be grateful if counsel for Housing New Zealand were to correct him as ''we'' go through.  Mr Mihaka wishes the opportunity to "correct" Mr Haines, who is either seriously mistaken or deliberately dishonest.

The last paragraph of page 47 of the transcript refers to Ms Furfie's "replacement brief of evidence" which was provided the night prior to the hearing on the 4th after Furfie's previous "evidence" was seriously discredited!  Filing a replacement brief and finding a replacement member of the Tribunal the night before the hearing is outrageous and unacceptable.

The paragraph adjacent to the number 5 on page 50 of the transcript refers to me as Catherine and is further evidence of the errors made by the Tribunal.

Page 53 discusses Ms Theron's assertion that as McKenzie friend I should have attended and spoken in Mr Mihaka's absence which is ridiculous.  The Tribunal then goes on to discuss the issues relating to natural justice.

Page 55 alludes to the plainly evidence inadequacy of the planned matter of disposition of the matter, and confirms that if a medical certificate is provided that is grounds for an adjournment.

Page 57 refers to the risible arguments of Housing New Zealand's counsel regarding their clients' position.

Page 62 states that Mr Mihaka is required to produce a medical certificate from a registered practitioner "setting out the reasons why Mr Miahka has been unable to attend the hearing today.  Second, that the certificate set out the length of time for which Mr Mihaka will be medically unfit to participate in the Tribunal hearing."  Mr Mihaka's medical practitioners are just that - medical practitioners, not clairvoyants.  They don't predict the future, or what Mr Mihaka's health will be like next week or next month, and these demands are a breach of Mr Mihaka's rights and of his privacy.

"At the resumption of the hearing two days is to be set aside" it says on page 62.

Dun provided letters from his medical practitioners regarding several matters involving these proceedings, including this one:

Another recent letter from Dun's registered medical practitioners says:

"This gentleman is seventy four years old and had a number of medical problems.
I am unclear of the recent circumstances surrounding the night he spent on a road in his car near National Park village, but regard it as inappropriate that any person of seventy four years old should, of necessity, sleep in a car on that stretch of road at that time of year."

We await the decision of Hardhearted Haines and his peers.