Human Rights Review Tribunal proposition to refer matter back to District Court:

Judge Behrens QC began one of his written decisions with the words "This case has taken some unusual turns."

Following an exchange of emails between Agent Raue and the various other parties to the proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, Office of Human Rights Proceedings (and the District Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), we received an email from the HRRT today.

Dear Ms Raue, Ms Cuncannon and Ms Shaw

Mr Mihaka (through Ms Raue) has applied variously for an extension of time for the filing of Mr Mihaka's evidence and also for an adjournment.  In case not all the correspondence has been copied to you by Ms Raue I attach in PDF:

1.    Email dated 8 September 2016 timed at 1:57pm from Ms Raue to the Office of Human Rights Proceedings (OHRP)
2.    Email dated 8 September 2016 timed at 3.53pm from Ms Raue to Ms Shaw
3.    Email dated 9 September 2016 timed at 12:48pm from Greg Robins, senior solicitor, OHRP
4.    Email dated 9 September 2016 timed at 3.57pm from me to Ms Raue requesting medical certificates
5.    Email dated 9 September 2016 timed at 4:57pm from Ms Raue to Mr Robins
6.    Email dated 12 September 2016 timed at 11.36am from Ms Raue regarding the requested medical certificates.

The Chairperson has directed that if Housing New Zealand Corporation wishes to file submissions in response to the adjournment application, those submissions be filed and served by 5pm on Friday 16 September 2016.

Now, this is the best bit:

The Chairperson would also like to hear from HNZC whether, with the benefit of hindsight, it would be better for the District Court appeal to be set down for hearing rather than adjourned pending the resolution by the Human Rights Review Tribunal of the proceedings brought by Mr Mihaka in HRRT076/2015.

Any submissions by Mr Mihaka in reply are to be filed and served by 5pm on Monday 19 September 2016.  Those submissions are to also address the question whether it would be better for the District Court appeal to be set down for hearing rather than adjourned pending resolution by the Tribunal of HRRT076/2015.
Yours sincerely
Helen

The "District Court appeal" refers not to an appeal of the dodgy conviction for the alleged assault I suspect, but to an appeal of the Tenancy Tribunal decision to evict Mr Mihaka.

We need to revisit the original conviction - it's no good saying Housing NZ Corporation didn't need a reason to evict Mr Mihaka because the fact is that they stated numerous times that there WAS a reason and that reason was the unsubstantiated, slanderous, allegations of Mr Dickie.

We also need an explanation from Ms Stephanie Smith regarding why she told a bare faced lie, and we need Naomi Davies and Kathy Furfie to identify the Police officer they allege told them the nonsense about Mr Mihaka living in a "suspected P house" etc.

9 September 2016 at 16:57

Tena koe Mr Robins,

Thank you for your response regarding this matter.

Please explain why your Office has been unable to 'retrieve' the email we sent since 12 August, you mentioned an 'IT' issue, please obtain a full explanation as to why you remain unable to access this email and all information regarding the IT provider(s) involved, how many other emails are affected?  Over what time period has this problem affected emails sent to your Office?

I will endeavor to print the application form again and resubmit it as soon as possible, but urgently request an extension of time to submit Mr Mihaka's evidence which was required to be in today on the grounds that, respectfully, the inability of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to access their emails is not Mr Mihaka's fault, there has been a serious miscarriage of justice which occurred because Mr Mihaka did not have legal representation because he could not afford to pay to defend a charge he was innocent of and being forced to do so, particularly repeatedly, is an injustice in itself.

We request an extension of time to submit Mr Mihaka's evidence - at least until Monday, and preferably until the Office of Human Rights Proceedings is able to access and consider the application we emailed on 12 August and posted shortly thereafter.

There is no urgency regarding this matter, Mr Dickie touched Mr Mihaka inappropriately and admitted it.  Contrary to the email from Karaka Tuhakaraina - crucial to the discriminatory decision to evict Mr Mihaka - Mr Mihaka has never ever admitted to assaulting or threatening Mr Dickie Mr Dickie has admitted touching Mr Mihaka inappropriately and then having a panic attack.  Mr Mihaka was denied any proper legal advice during the trial process, was completely unaware that he was entitled to Disclosure according to the Criminal Disclosures Act, and Judge Hastings' wise suggestion that an amicus curiae be appointed was ignored by the trial Judge.

Contrary to the information we have received Mr Mihaka NEVER agreed to this matter being fast tracked under urgency in the first place - there was never any need for urgency, Housing New Zealand Corporation and their representatives are not being honest in claiming that there is!  They suggest that there have been complaints from other tenants and evidence of assault against other tenants - none of which is supported by any actual EVIDENCE whatsoever!

We requested the information referred to in the ASBG on pages 20 and 21 - the T463 form, statement, etc, this information has not been provided and it is crucial to Mr Mihaka's evidence, being the allegation against him.  We also requested the HNZC Guide to the Privacy Act referred to in the ASBG and are making a formal complaint to the Privacy Commissioner regarding the serious discrepancies in the so called evidence regarding these matters and the clear and indisputable serious miscarriage of justice and blatant discrimination of the very kind referred to by the recent Henry Harkness lecture given by Justice Ron Young (attached).

Housing New Zealand's policies don't apparently consider the possibility that the complaint may not be justified, the complainant may be mistaken, or wrong, or confused, all of which should be considered when dealing with older people.  The policy appears to assume the complainant is always right and there is no possibility that the accused may be innocent - this is borne out by the fact that HNZC breached Mr Mihaka and made the decision to evict him prior to his conviction purely on the basis of information provided by the complainant. 

The refusal of HNZC to reveal the identity of the Police officer who allegedly told them that Mr Mihaka lives in a suspected P house, uses methamphetamine and is a serious cannabis smoker is extremely disingenuous in the face of the very recently obtained evidence that the information originated from Mr Dickie, not the Police.  The allegations are contained in Mr Dickie's statement to Police.

Mr Mihaka apparently received one letter from HNZC dated 12 August 2014 which is that on page 63 of the bundle of documents provided by Meredith Connell.  Mr Mihaka fully complied with this letter.  We dispute the allegation of HNZC that Mr Mihaka refused to engage with them - he endeavored to engage, but according to the evidence HNZC had already made up their mind.  HNZC are refusing to engage in their refusal to provide the identity of the Police office alleged to have provided the information which is coincidentally identical to that provided by the complainant and not independent corroboration at all, and other information, falsely claiming that the decision to issue the 90 day notice preceded the breach for the assault as claimed in the transcript of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing.

It is a basic human right to be tried by one's peers and the manner of the recusal of the one Maori member of the panel and the refusal of the suggested recusal of another member who previously worked with Housing NZ Corporation combined with the denial of affordable legal aid, the apparent incompetence of the two appeal lawyers in not even noticing that Mr Mihaka had never been provided with Disclosure let alone the serious discrepancies therein, are particularly relevant in reference to the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal that Maori never ceded sovereignty and never agreed to be 'governed' like this - if the British Crown legal system is going to impose its will on tangata whenua they need to act fairly!  Mr Mihaka has clearly and indisputably been the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice and it is imperative that he has legal representation in these proceedings because the very fact that he didn't have legal representation earlier is the cause of a huge waste of time and resources and the very reason for this outrageous state of affairs.

We have only today received a response from the High Court to our application for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds of the serious discrepancies which have suddenly become apparent upon the application of Mr Mihaka's Agent for the information he was entitled to under the Criminal Disclosures Act.  This response dismisses our application on a technicality and recommends we seek legal advice - the situation is truly Kafka-esque - we have done our very best to obtain legal assistance as the correspondence with Mr Gwilliam, Mr Bourke, etc, document very well!  We pay taxes to a government which can't access their emails because they moved to the cloud, while we can't afford basic resources ourselves and the government wants to spy on us and talk about information sharing but can't access the emails for this length of time?

We do not intend any disrespect to the Tribunal, but cannot believe the recent decision to cram the hearing into one day and now to find that our application still can't be accessed by the Office of Human Rights Proceedings because of an 'IT issue'.  This is not justice, and Maori never ceded sovereignty or ever agreed to be 'governed' like this, and Mr Mihaka strongly believes that the mana of te taonga a o tatou matua tupuna, te reo Maori, is being dishonoured by these proceedings - there should have been an amicus in the District Court and the issue of the discrepancies in the evidence need addressing!

We are compiling Mr Mihaka's evidence on a website at this link in the hope that some of our evidence will meet the required standards in respect of the instructions issued by the Human Rights Review Tribunal and comply with the narrow jurisdictions and arcane intricacies New Zealand legal system in which access to justice is increasingly unattainable and inaccessible, as confirmed by Justice Young, Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General and the correspondence between Mr Mihaka, his lawyers and the Courts and Tribunals regarding these related matters - Housing NZ Corporation is being disingenuous in pretending that the eviction of Mr Mihaka had nothing to do with Mr Dickie's wild, fanciful, embellished, contradictory allegations - their claims are totally contradicted by the evidence. 

Housing NZ Corporation clearly discriminated against Mr Mihaka by simply taking the word of Mr Dickie and giving undue credibility to Mr Dickie despite the indisputable discrepancies in his evidence and the ongoing refusal to be honest about the fact that the slanderous information about Mr Mihaka which is referred to in Mr Bourke's correspondence with Police and Housing NZ Corporation is clearly lifted verbatim from the statement of Mr Dickie, who is the source of the information, not the Police as Housing NZ are disingenuously suggesting if not deliberately and knowingly claiming to be true when they know perfectly well it is not true, along with several other claims including those referred to in this and other recent emails.

Housing NZ Corporation are also disingenuous in falsely claiming that a statement was taken from Mr Dickie in accordance with their policies as is clearly evident in the transcript of the hearing beginning on 3 August 2016 - no such statement as required by the policy was recorded as evident by the response of Meredith Connell to our request for a copy of the statement of the complainant as required by HNZC policy.  It doesn't exist and HNZC continue to try and make out it does but it just wasn't "put to paper" as it were.  It's nothing but Chinese Whispers and common gossip, and the evidence of the complainant does not stand up to scrutiny, and Mr Mihaka has not been given any reasonable opportunity to be heard, or even properly informed regarding the allegations against him, and he has been further ripped off by the two lawyers conducting the appeals who did not even notice Mr Mihaka never even received Disclosure and thus seriously limiting his ability to prepare or present a defence, in addition to the arresting officer telling him the alleged offence happened on a different day to the complainant's allegations, and the other discrepancies.

Nga mihi
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka 

We will be suggesting to the Human Rights Review Tribunal that the decision of France J be revisited as there is clearly fresh evidence that was not available to the Court before now, being the contradictory information recently released by NZ Police, Housing NZ Corporation, the complainant, lawyers, and others involved in these matters. 

Transcript of Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing on 3 August 2016, Office of Human Rights Proceedings:

Dear Ms Raue

Thank you for your email message and attached letter received today.

As discussed with you in our telephone conversation on Wednesday 17 August, the Commission recently undertook an electronic migration to the ‘cloud’. 

Regrettably, during that process our OHRP mailbox went offline for two weeks due to matters completely beyond our control.  The contractors have still not been able to restore emails sent to our OHRP mailbox during that time.  Consequently we have not been able to access the Application for Legal Representation which you indicated you sent by email to the OHRP mailbox on Friday 12 August.  However, as the mailbox is now working again it would be appreciated if you would re-send the application to ohrp@ohrp.org.nz.

We very much apologise for this considerable inconvenience.

Thank you.
Pam Rowe

The link to the transcript of the first part of the hearing held in the Human Rights Review Tribunal on 3 August 2016 is at this link, click to view.

The transcript of the second part of the hearing is at this link.

Readers will note that an adjournment was granted for the purposes of Mr Mihaka making application to the Office of Human Rights Proceedings for representation in the proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Mr Mihaka's Maori Agent emailed the application form as instructed promptly, however the response from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings was less than inspiring, and is copied below, apparently, since they 'moved to the cloud' they've been - and still are - unable to access ten days worth of emails, which is a very unfortunate state of affairs, but par for the course as far as government agencies information sharing policies and procedures, such as the information sharing between Housing NZ Corporation and NZ Police:

 26 August 2016:

Tena koutou katoa

Attached is the letter referred to in our application for assistance and supporting correspondence regarding Mr Mihaka's medical appointment in support of his application for an adjournment because the nominated dates are unsuitable as he cannot reschedule his appointment and the stress of having a two day hearing condensed into one day, starting earlier is not conducive to Mr Mihaka's health or the concept of fair justice.  Housing NZ Corporation was granted an adjournment when their witness requested one on medical grounds and it is only fair that Mr Mihaka is treated in the same manner - HNZC were not simply told to attend on the other day and we'd squeeze it in, and it is not fair on Mr Mihaka, whose health was already compromised by Police who are also a party to these proceedings, a letter from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding that recent incident, which is relevant to this matter, contains the following statement:
    "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."
Nga mihi
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 "Dear Ms Raue

Thank you for your email message and attached letter received today.

As discussed with you in our telephone conversation on Wednesday 17 August, the Commission recently undertook an electronic migration to the ‘cloud’. Regrettably, during that process our OHRP mailbox went offline for two weeks due to matters completely beyond our control. The contractors have still not been able to restore emails sent to our OHRP mailbox during that time. Consequently we have not been able to access the Application for Legal Representation which you indicated you sent by email to the OHRP mailbox on Friday 12 August. However, as the mailbox is now working again it would be appreciated if you would re-send the application to ohrp@ohrp.org.nz.

We very much apologise for this considerable inconvenience.

Thank you.

Pam Rowe
Registered Legal Executive/EA to the Director
Office of Human Rights Proceedings
PO Box 6751
Wellesley Street
AUCKLAND"

The application was mailed through NZ Post immediately we became aware of the inability of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings to access their emails, there has been no response to date, or any acknowledgement of receipt of the application.

The following email was sent to the Human Rights Review Tribunal and Meredith Connell (Housing NZ Corporation's taxpayer funded legal team) today:

Tena koutou katoa,

Regarding the transcript of the Tenancy Tribunal hearing on 24 September 2014 before Adjudicator Janet Robertshawe.  On page 9 of the transcript of proceedings the Adjudicator questions Meredith Connell representative, saying "there's a feeling . . . that there's been something unjustified about that decision [to evict Mr Mihaka], . . . Are you aware of that?"

Ms Smith responded "I am, the 90-day notice was issued prior to us breaching the tenant for the alleged assault."  This would appear to be blatantly untrue and Ms Smith should have been well aware that it was untrue.

This untruth certainly influenced the Tribunal, and it is a serious matter to which we would appreciate an immediate response.

Secondly, the information provided by HNZC contains an email exchange involving Karaka Tuhakaraina of Housing NZ Corporation, in which Karaka Tuhakaraina claims that "Mr Mihaka has assaulted another resident, admits it and continues to antagonise others."

This is outrageous - Mr Mihaka has NEVER admitted assaulting another resident - the 'other resident', presumably Mr Dickie - has admitted assaulting Mr Mihaka - several times!  There is NO information to suggest that Mr Mihaka"continues to antagonise others" whatsoever!  In fact here is no evidence that there were any complaints against Mr Mihaka from any resident other than Mr Dickie!

Thirdly, NZ Police have now confirmed in writing that they hold no information such as that allegedly told to Housing NZ Corporation staff regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, etc, we have provided a copy of the letter from Police saying so and we insist that either Housing NZ reveal the identity of the Police office who allegedly told staff that, or correct the information in the face of the EVIDENCE provided by NZ Police!

We insist that this information is corrected immediately, and an explanation provided regarding the statements of Ms Smith - evidence shows that Housing New Zealand Corporation wrote to Mr Mihaka informing him of the breach WELL PRIOR to the issuing of the 90 day notice!

Fourtlhy, regarding the claim that Mr Mihaka's previous lawyer agreed to this matter being heard under urgency - Mr Mihaka states that he most certainly never agreed to any such thing, the need to evict him was certainly NOT urgent - Mr Dickie was relocated thereby ending the problem created by his unwanted and uninvited touching of Mr Mihaka!  We strongly oppose the decision to limit the hearing to one day starting earlier instead of a two day hearing as originally set down - Housing NZ Corporation was granted an adjournment to another 2 day hearing on their application regarding a medical appointment for their witness and we insist on equal treatment!

Furthermore, we received advice from the Office of Human Rights Proceedings that they have "recently moved to the cloud" or something and as a result of this they are still unable to access their emails for a certain period of time, including the email we sent.  This is not Mr Mihaka's fault!  We mailed the application as well as emailed it, but have to date received no response - this also is NOT Mr Mihaka's fault!  We request an adjournment pending the Office of Human Rights Proceedings finding a way to access their emails, as well as Mr Mihaka's medical appointment - his doctors have expressed disquiet regarding the proximity of the dates of the hearing and Mr Mihaka's medical procedure and this rush is unnecessary, unseemly and totally unwarranted!

Nga mihi
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka