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.