Police deny Housing NZ Corporation's claims:

Below is page 120 of the bundle of documents provided to Mr Mihaka and his Agent the day prior to the hearing in the Human Rights Review Tribunal.  This is one of the pages containing defamatory allegations about Mr Mihaka.  On 21 April 2015 Naomi Davies of Housing New Zealand Corporation alleged that "Police have confirmed tnt [tenant] to be a serious cannabis smoker and although they can not confirm, they have heard that the tenant is using meth".  Mr Mihaka first became aware of this notation in March 2016 whereupon he immediately requested that it be removed or corrected, a request which was refused by Kathy Furfie of HNZC.

Mr Mihaka's lawyer wrote to Police regarding this outrageous defamation, and guess what?  NZ Police deny telling Housing Corp any such thing.

The reference above to "Karaka" seems to refer to a person called Karaka Tuhakaraina, who is part of the Housing NZ Corporation's legal department apparently - and given to a bit of exaggeration and invention himself - in another piece of information recently obtained, this Karaka Tuhakaraina states that Mr Mihaka actually ADMITS assaulting Mr Dickie, which is blatantly untrue to the point of delusional - Mr Mihaka has always strenuously denied assaulting Mr Dickie.

Contrary to the claims that Mr Mihaka "continue to antagonise others", there is no evidence whatsoever of any complaints of antagonistic behaviour being received from anyone other than Mr Dickie!

The letter from Mr Mihaka's lawyer to Police regarding this matter is at this link, and the letter from Police denying HNZC's claims is at this link.  Mr Mihaka considers that there are a number of inaccuracies in this letter, including the claim that Constable Tahere was "helpful" toward Mr Mihaka.  Mr Mihaka says that in the time he has known Constable Tahere it has been apparent to Mr Mihaka that Constable Tahere was more inclined to be helpful to people such as Housing Corporation staff and Mr Dickie, and that there was a history of animosity between Constable Tahere and Mr Mihaka.  The offhand manner of this response is both ignorant and arrogant - ignoring the fact that this is a serious issue which has resulted in the imminent eviction of Mr Mihaka and the recording of outrageous false allegations against him attributed to NZ Police and Warren Frederick Dickie, and arrogant in the continued allegations of assault despite the nebulous and conflicting claims of Mr Dickie which simply do not stand up to scrutiny.  Despite all this it is perfectly clear that Police categorically deny the claims of HNZC.

When Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent collected the files from the two lawyers previously acting for Mr Mihaka, Nathan Bourke and Brett Crowley, there was no sign whatsoever of any Police statement from Mr Dickie regarding the allegation against Mr Mihaka.  There was a Summary of Facts on the files, which Mr Mihaka was unaware of.  When a person engages a lawyer, the lawyer receives all information on that person's behalf, so the lawyers had the Court transcript and other information, but Mr Mihaka had never seen the information on the lawyers' files, including the transcript and the Summary of 'Facts' (sic), let alone Mr Dickie's statement to Police, which it seems was never seen by Mr Mihaka or either of his lawyers.  Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent made enquiries with Nathan Bourke and Brett Crowley and both confirmed that they had never seen any statement made by the complainant to NZ Police, so the Maori Agent made a formal request according to the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008, the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act for all information regarding this matter, in particular any statement made to NZ Police by the complainant.

Eventually the following statement was provided:

Page 2 (above) shows that in fact Mr Dickie 'assaulted' Mr Mihaka by touching him unnecessarily, while he was asleep.  ". . . he dozed off in the early part of the evening . . . it was then that I . . . tapped him . . . it was about 9 - 9:30 at night.  That's when the assault took place.  I knew Dun was asleep and I tapped him."  Mr Dickie, in effect, assaulted Mr Mihaka, not the other way around.  Police left this FACT out when they wrote up their Summary of "Facts".

This is a very serious discrepancy.

In his sworn evidence Mr Dickie states the incident happened at around 7:30 in the morning just after he awoke and made coffee - NOT 9:30 at night as he was about to go to bed!

Page 3 of Mr Dickie's statement makes it quite clear that he is prone to panicking, and that he did panic.  He imagined he was under attack and panicked, probably hyperventilating to the point that he had trouble breathing.  He estimates that Mr Mihaka had his hands on him for "between 30 seconds and one minute."  He doubles this to one to two minutes in his sworn evidence, demonstrating a propensity for exaggeration and embellishment.

Page 4 of the complainants statement against Mr Mihaka was provided to Mr Mihaka with the last four lines blacked out:

We finally obtained a copy of the unredacted page, and surprise, surprise - it seems that HNZC obtained the defamatory information regarding Mr Mihaka from none other than Mr Dickie.   They seem to have also exaggerated, claiming that they received the information from Police when in fact, the information came from Mr Dickie.

Caught out in the cold

Update on current events from Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka's Maori Agent:

I noticed my phone battery had gone flat at 10:32 at night on 30th May 2016 and upon charging it I discovered a message from Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka as follows:

"I've been stopped by the Police @ National Park and have had my keys take off me by a policewoman who said she knew that I had bad record for beating up on women.  I am staying in the car for the night."

 Shortly followed by another message:

"Think I can do with some help PRONTO!"

I immediately tried to ring him, but soon realised that his phone also was not working, and that if he was indeed stranded in his car with no keys he would be unable to charge his phone, or heat the car, among other things, and that given his age and his health and the fact that it was the middle of winter and National Park is noted for freezing winter temperatures, there was cause for serious concern. 

I rang the Police communications centre on *555 to enquire about the matter and was (eventually) told that it was true, Police had taken his keys and left this elderly gentleman stranded at National Park, late at night, in the middle of nowhere, with no way of heating the car and no working phone.  This action by Police posed serious risk to matua's health, whanau were very concerned for his welfare, and unable to contact him.  I was eventually put through to someone who knew what was going on.  I said "Please tell me that Police have not left a seventy five year old man stranded somewhere in a National Park with no phone and no car keys overnight in the middle of winter."  Unfortunately they couldn't tell me that, and eventually confirmed that this was in fact true.

I enquired as to the reason his keys had been taken and when Police planned to return them.  I was told that the keys had been taken to Ohakune Police station because his license needed "reinstating", and then I was told this could be done the following morning if Mr Mihaka simply went to the Ohakune Police station and paid around forty dollars.  Apparently, Mr Mihaka had previously accrued some demerit points and was banned from driving because of this for a brief period of time.  When that time ended, Mr Mihaka thought he could just resume driving, as a lot of people would.  Unfortunately, the government revenue gathering machine apparently requires people to fill in a form and pay around $40 to "reinstate" their license, a fact Mr Mihaka was unaware of.

I pointed out to Police that without a phone or car keys he couldn't get to Ohakune Police station or anywhere else.  I pointed out also that Mr Mihaka had been stopped by another Police officer the previous Friday and advised that he needed to fill in a form and pay a fee to achieve "appropriate compliance" regarding his licence, and that he had told that officer he had been unaware of this requirement, which was a reasonable explanation - many people are unaware of it - promised to attend to it immediately upon his return home the following Monday, which was of course the day the officer stopped him in National Park for exactly the same offence.  The first infringement notice, issued by an officer who is obviously a much more sensible, reasonable and compassionate person, at Mata in the Far North, on a Friday, and the officer offered compliance, in other words if Mr Mihaka attended to the matter within 28 days the $400 fine would be waived.

The second ticket was issued the following Monday at National Park as Mr Mihaka was returning home.  The Police officer on this occasion was not nearly so reasonable.  The (female) officer stopped him and issued the ticket, for exactly the same offence, but in this case the officer exercised discretion inappropriately, made inappropriate comments about Mr Mihaka's "history with women", then apparently called for back up from another officer before taking his keys and leaving him stranded on the side of a narrow road, a state highway, in the dark, with no working phone and no way of heating the car, for a minor administrative matter.

Police actions posed a serious risk to Mr Mihaka's health for a number of reasons, including the fact that he may well not have enough medication with him, he is taking several types of medication and the risk of a blood clot was a real possibility if he were confined to the car overnight, also he may very well not have enough warm clothing - he is notorious for getting about in shorts and a singlet regardless of the season and relying on the car heater for warmth, he could get run over trying to hitchhike as he is known to travel by hitchhiking if necessary, he could get run over if he were to get out of the car due to a moderate walking disability which is why he is so reliant on his vehicle.  He had been left on a very narrow road verge, in an unlit area, and on the edge of a steep bank which he could have fallen down and died of exposure.  He could have slipped on ice - I advised Police that I was Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka's Maori Agent and I wished to make a formal complaint regarding the actions of Police at National Park which I considered to be reckless, negligent, prejudiced and biased, totally unnecessary, dangerous, and totally in breach of their fiduciary duties.

Police responded by saying that they wouldn't be giving Mr Mihaka any special treatment.  I pointed out that we weren't asking for special treatment, just the fair application of Police discretion in this case, there was no reason why the second Police officer could not have offered compliance as the first one had done.  Police refused to reconsider the decision to abandon Mr Mihaka in the National Park with no keys and no phone, and they initially refused to check on his well being during the night when I asked that they do so, saying that they " . . . might not have any cars in the area."

I advised Police that Mr Mihaka's whanau were extremely concerned and upset about the situation and that we insisted Police check on Mr Mihaka's well being at regular intervals during the night.  Police continued to refuse to check on Mr Mihaka during the night and said we should ring back in the morning, until I said that if they continued to refuse to do so we would call 111 and send an ambulance to check on him, and then we would contact the media and have a news camera crew on the scene by the morning to document the state of affairs as Mr Mihaka attempted to get himself out of the situation he'd been placed in without a phone or any way of getting anywhere or contacting anyone.  Whereupon Police agreed to check on him and gave me their word they would.

It was like some Machiavellian reality television Survivor type challenge, devised by Her Majesty's Constabulary.

On ringing back next morning I was told that Police were checking on Mr Mihaka and attempting to help him but he kept "giving [them] an earful."  I told Police to suck it up, anyone would be giving them an earful under the circumstances and the only "help" Mr Mihaka needed from Police was for them to return his keys, which they were still refusing to do.  I asked to speak to the Police Area Commander.

Eventually I received a call from Ross Grantham, the Area Commander.  I requested that Police collect Mr Mihaka and transport him to a Police station or wherever he needed to go to "reinstate" his license and give him back his keys.

Mr Grantham called back a short time later to advise that Police had picked Mr Mihaka up and were taking him to Taumaranui Police station.  I asked why they were taking him to Taumaranui if his keys were at Ohakune Police station, and was told that there was now another problem.  Police required Mr Mihaka to have a medical check as he was seventy five.  I pointed out that he wasn't seventy five until July.  Mr Grantham said he was "in his seventy fifth year" so it applied.  I requested Police make arrangements for me to speak with Mr Mihaka without delay.

After waiting a reasonable time I rang Taumaranui Police station and spoke with a Police officer by the name of Conrad, who explained that the local doctor was not prepare to do the medical without Mr Mihaka's medical notes, which he didn't have access to, so Conrad said Mr Mihaka's own doctor would need to do the medical, and so Police would arrange for Mr Mihaka to travel home by bus, at his own expense.

Mr Mihaka passed his medical test with flying colours the following day, reinstated his license, and we returned to collect his vehicle.

The whole exercise ended up costing Mr Mihaka a considerable amount of money, and Police are still enforcing the $400 fine issued by the officer who should be disciplined for leaving him stranded in the cold all night over a minor administrative matter.

 

The ticket above, issued on Friday 27th at Mata in the Far North, states that compliance has been offered, and gives Mr Mihaka 14 days to comply, by 'reinstating' his drivers license.  

The ticket below, identical in every respect except one (see "Compliance Offered" field in the two tickets), was issued the following Monday.   Despite Mr Mihaka telling the officer he had been unaware of the requirement to 'reinstate' his license until the officer at Mata had informed him of it, and that he was on his way home to attend to the 'reinstatement' first thing the following morning, this officer made the patently unreasonable decision to exercise her bias against Maori by refusing compliance to Mr Mihaka, and furthermore taking his car keys, leaving him stranded on a narrow verge on the side of the main highway, on a cold winter night, unable to turn on the car heater, and with no working phone.

This decision was reckless, irresponsible, unreasonable, unprofessional, and cruel. 

The final word goes to Te Ringa Mangu's doctor, who, along with the other staff at the local medical centre, are taking good care of our kaumatua.  Unlike local Police, who demonstrate a woeful disregard for tangata whenua, for the elderly, for basic human rights, let alone justice.

"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."

Te Tou Rongo-nui-o-te-Ao, Te Ringa Mangu v HNZC and NZ Police State

Behold - the work of the NZ Police Prosecution Service.  Police information sharing is characterised by Police sharing all the wrong information with all the wrong people.

- Note the time of the alleged commission of the crime, namely "at about 9 pm on Monday 30th June 2014", as the alleged 'victim' "informed the Defendant that he was going to bed."  According to the Police:

This is further stated in HNZC's Request for Termination of a Tenancy - this says the alleged incident happened "on Monday evening (30/06/2014)."

Now compare this with the evidence given on oath by the complainant, and note the time the alleged offence was allegedly committed - some 14 hours difference, and a very serious fundamental discrepancy in the case for the prosecution:

"He was amiable."

Mr Dickie is clearly exaggerating.  He is very unfit and in poor health, and couldn't hold his breath for one minute let alone two.

No motive was ever put forward in support of this unsubstantiated allegation.  The element of mens rea was completely missing and any suggestion of actus reus is highly questionable as the transcript shows.  The transcript also shows that Mr Dickie responded to the majority of the questions with "I can't recall".

"I don't know with any clarity, I just can't recall that" responds the complainant.

The plot thickens.

On 21 April 2015 Naomi Davies of Housing New Zealand Corporation recorded the following outrageous, slanderous and defamatory breach of privacy:

Mr Mihaka has specifically asked Police where they "heard" this damning and untrue allegation.

Police, funnily enough, have denied telling Housing New Zealand Corporation any such thing.

Here is evidence that Constable Tahere is the likely suspect regarding the "information sharing" with Naomi Davies:

Now let's have a look at the notebook of Constable Saunders - who had obviously made up his mind to arrest Mr Mihaka before he even knocked on the door, and who told Mr Mihaka he was charged with an offence that allegedly happened not on 30th June at all - Saunders told Mr Mihaka the alleged crime he was charged with and being arrested for was supposed to have happened on the 1st of July!:

So here we have it, the problem, in a nutshell, is the Police State information sharing policies and procedures, and systems of governance - to which, of course, the Maori people did not sign up to in the first place.  Sharing all the wrong information with all the wrong people.  Shoddy, slaphappy, incompetent, negligent, biased.

The writer has been contacted by several people who know Mr Dickie and Mr Mihaka, these people all claim that although Mr Mihaka is no angel, Mr Dickie is a racist and a bully.  The EVIDENCE speaks for itself - Mr Dickie assaulted Mr Mihaka, not the other way around.  Mr Dickie moved, thus ending HNZC's problem, but HNZC is pursuing a malicious vendetta against Mr Mihaka, like the Police and others associated with the colonial "justice system".  Mr Dickie droned on drunkenly with his patronising and racist views, then touched Mr Mihaka inappropriately while he was asleep - THAT is when the assault took place, as page 2 of Mr Dickie's statement makes perfectly clear:

Memorandum of Counsel for Housing Corporation requesting adjournment, granted:

The memorandum can also be viewed at this link.

History of Te Reo Maori in the Courts of NZ:

07 July 2016 - By James Greenland - NZ Law Society

Every year since 1975 New Zealand has marked Māori Language Week.
Māori Language Week 2016 runs from 4-10 July, under the theme: "ākina te reo – behind you all the way", which the Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori/the Māori Language Commission says is about using te reo Māori to support people, to inspire and to cheer on.

The Ministry of Justice has recently made efforts to encourage the daily use of te reo in High Court proceedings, publishing translations of Māori court announcements (ngā pānui i te reo Māori) and training District Court officers and staff with flip-cards to better pronounce and understand Māori phrases.

For example: "Silence, all stand for His/Her Honour the Queen's Judge" in te reo Māori is: "Kia rite mō te Kaiwhakawā o te Kuini, e tū koa".

The new te reo announcements, introduced with the support of Chief Judge Jan-Marie Doogue and the guidance of Judge Taumanu, have been heard in District Courts since February, with court staff assisted by a "buddy" training system and audio pronunciation guides.
However, use of te reo Māori not always been welcome in New Zealand courts.

"Speak no Māori"

In the early 1800s the te reo Māori was the most predominantly spoken language in Aotearoa, albeit with regional variations developed over hundreds of years of pre-European settlement by Māori in New Zealand.

Savvy Pākeha settlers quickly learned to speak Māori to facilitate trade, and by 1820 a collaboration between Cambridge University's Professor Samuel Lee and Māori chief Hongi Hika had codified te reo Māori, traditionally an oral and symbolic language only, in writing that was widely shared and learned across the country.

It was not uncommon for government officials, church leaders and other prominent Pākeha to korero/ speak Māori.

A century later, though, as English and the Western 'way-of-life' took hold in New Zealand, use of te reo had sharply declined and become confined to mostly to Māori communities.

By the 1950s it was feared that te reo Māori may disappear entirely.

Most Pākehā did not understand that the Māori language was an essential expression and envelope of Māori culture, important for Māori in maintaining their pride and identity as a people. Speaking Māori was now officially discouraged, and many Māori themselves questioned its relevance in a Pākehā-dominated world where the most important goal seemed to be to get ahead as an individual.
The Māori language was suppressed in schools, either formally or informally, to ensure that Māori youngsters assimilated with the wider community.

-          New Zealand History "History of the Māori language"
From the 1970s many Māori began to reassert their identity as Māori. An emphasis on the language as an integral part of Māori culture was central to this identity. Māori leaders were increasingly recognising the danger that te reo would be lost.

The fight for the right to kōrero Māori

In 1979, well-known activist and repeat self-represented litigant Te Ringa 'Dun' Mihaka challenged the legal status of te reo Māori, after the District Court had refused to let him speak his native language during proceedings.

In Mihaka v Police [1980] 1 NZLR 453 the Court of Appeal agreed that use of the Māori language was a matter of public importance, but held that, under English common law applicable in New Zealand since 1840, Mr Mihaka must speak English.

"...any extension of the official use of the Maori language is a matter for the legislature, not for the Courts. English has been the customary language of the Courts in New Zealand from the earliest colonial days," Richardson J stated (at 462).

While he lost the battle, Mihaka's appeal fuelled the fires of change that ultimately won the war – when te reo Māori was recognised as an official language in 1987.

The official legal empowerment of te reo Māori in the courts stemmed from a Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on The Te Reo Maori Claim, released in 1986.

Referencing Mihaka's case, the Tribunal reported that, under the law as it was then, "no Māori may use his language in the Courts of New Zealand if he can speak English". That was inconsistent with Aotearoa/New Zealand's bi-cultural foundation," it held.

Te reo was a taonga (treasure) that the Crown (government) was obliged to protect under the Treaty of Waitangi, the Tribunal said.

Ultimately, it recommended Māori be declared an official language of New Zealand (which it was two years later under the Māori Language Act 1987). The Māori Language Commission / te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori was also established under the Act to promote te reo Māori.

The Tribunal recommended five ways for the government to remedy the breaches of the treaty in relation to te reo:

• pass laws allowing the language to be used in courts and in dealings with local and central government;
• establish a statutory body to 'supervise and foster the use of the Māori language';
• examine the teaching of te reo Māori and 'ensure that all children who wish to learn Māori should be able to do so';
• recognise and protect te reo in broadcasting;
• and ensure that fluency in both Māori and English became a necessary or desirable requirement for some public service positions.

The law today is clear – you may speak Māori in court

More recently, a decision of the Waitangi Tribunal's Judge Ambler refusing to allow cross-examination of two non- Māori expert witnesses in te reo was judicially reviewed with partial success.

In Green v Te Rōpu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi (Waitangi Tribunal) [2014] NZHC 723 Justice MacKenzie said the law (under the previous Māori Language Act 1987) was clear: "persons listed [in the Act] may speak Māori in any legal proceedings, whether or not they are able to understand or communicate in English".

"It is not a requirement that the person cross-examined is able to understand te reo Māori," Justice MacKenzie said [at 12].

However, in the circumstances of the proceeding, and with the need to allow "considerable latitude
 to the Waitangi Tribunal on matters of procedure", His Honour chose not to overturn the Tribunal's ultimate decision not to allow counsel to cross-examine in te reo.

As Judge Ambler had originally noted, the Treaty of Waitangi Act (which created the Tribunal) "expressly does not create an absolute entitlement to hearings or to representation by counsel or to the manner in which hearings are conducted".

"In a perfect environment all claimants and witnesses would have the time they needed to present their evidence as they see fit. But they must all modify their approach to fit within the constraints of the inquiry."

While it was not open to the Tribunal to require cross-examination in English, procedural necessities and the Tribunal's broad powers to regulate its proceedings led Justice MacKenzie to hold that cross-examination was not wrongly refused.

He noted the difference between considerations of expediency in the Waitangi Tribunal compared with defendants' right to use te reo Māori in a criminal trial. In that context, the "defendant's right to a fair trial must take precedence over considerations of time, cost and convenience," Justice MacKenzie said [at 16].

The right to speak Māori in court is today found in section 7 of Te Ture mō Te Reo Māori 2016/the Māori Language Act 2016, and the procedural rules, including the direction that parties provide advanced notice of their intention to speak Māori, can be found here.

Ken Shirley and Te Tiriti o Waitangi:

Kia ora to Frank Macskasy for the following diligent report:

Most folk won’t remember who Ken Shirley was, prior to his current ‘gig’ as  CEO of the Road Transport Forum (RTF), representing road transport interests since July 2010.

From 1984 to 1990, Shirley was nominally a Labour Party MP. He was closely aligned with the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, and other right-wingers who had seized control of the party during the 1980s.

From 1996 to 2005, Shirley was an ACT Party MP. As such, he was an acolyte of  the neo-liberal school of economics and a strong adherent of free market forces. Part of ACT’s policies is to scrap the minimum wage.

“Graduation day at Te Wananga.
Soon after the Labour Government came to office it started showering money on all things Maori. ” – NZ Herald

“Soon after the Labour Government came to office, ushering in its flagship ‘Closing the Gaps’ programmes. It started showering money on all things Maori. ” – Ibid

“Out of this Te Wananga o Aotearoa pocketed $5.8 million and said that would go a long way towards providing for its growth. ” – Ibid

“But the Government went further. Closing the Gaps demanded even more taxpayer money be thrown at Maori. ” – Ibid

“Despite its apparent concern, it has continued to shovel huge sums of taxpayer money to this institution – all in the name of the treaty. ” – Ibid

“The Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commissioners have foreshadowed that the decision to allow the Maori Land Court to hear iwi claims to the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds opens the way for similar claims around the country” ACT New Zealand Deputy Leader Ken Shirley said today.

I now call upon Prime Minister Helen Clark to act consistently, and to declare such claims off limits -as she recently did in the case of the claim for oil and gas reserves. In this instance, it was made quite clear that oil, gas and mineral reserves were vested in the Crown by legislation in 1937.” – Press releases on Court of Appeal decision on foreshores and seabed, Recreation Access

“I am again calling on the Labour Government to act decisively. It must spell out the bounds to claims – in order to prevent undue anxiety for tens of thousands of New Zealanders, and to ensure that iwi don’t waste any more time and money pursuing claims that should be off limits.” – Ibid

Te Ahuahu Native School 1952

In 1952 or 53 or thereabouts Te Ringa Mangu 'Dun' Mihaka was already showing the signs of future leadership.  There's no mistaking the steely gaze in this early photo of Dun.

Dun was Dux of Te Ahuahu Native School in about 1952 around the time this photo was taken.