Response regarding application for recall of Court of Appeal decision:

Received a response from the Court of Appeal to Maori Agent Raue's application for recall of the decision of France J.

The requirement that the application be signed by the applicant or appellant personally is unnecessary - an injustice is an injustice no matter who draws it to the attention of the Court.  The Minute correctly states in paragraph 3 that the Rules do NOT specifically require the signature of the appellant.

The Court has cited the case of Hooper v Police, which was not decided 'on the papers', Mr Hooper appeared via video link by the look of it.

Ironically, any lawyer could have filed the application on behalf of Mr Mihaka, instead of Maori Agent Raue, and the lawyer's signature would have been acceptable.  Ironic because Mr Mihaka has so far been billed over $4,500 by lawyers Brett Crowley and Nathan Bourke for two appeals against the conviction for allegedly assaulting Warren Frederick Dickie.

The appeals were partly upheld, by France J, but would doubtless have been entirely successful if either of these two lawyers had realised that Mr Mihaka never received Disclosure prior to the trial, according to the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.

Neither of these lawyers even noticed that there was no statement from the complainant to Police, let alone notice the very serious discrepancies between the various information and evidence relied on to convict Mr Mihaka.

Ironically, there seems to have been little or no consultation with tangata whenua (Maori) regarding the establishment of the role of Maori agents in the 1955 Law Practitioners Act, and no consultation with tangata whenua regarding the DISestablishment of the role.

More concerning are the attempts to erase all record of the shameful history of the role of Maori agents in conning Maori out of their land - defrauding Maori.  More legislation is being passed to further alienate tangata whenua from their land.

The site will be updated with our response shortly.