Housing Corporation New Zealand Ltd aka 'Kainga Ora' enlist Police to force elderly man into unsanitary housing:

TVNZ recently reported on a tornado which struck the home of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka on 9 June 2022.

On 28 July 2022 TVNZ again reported on these matters when Kainga Ora enlisted Police to force their elderly client into 'unsuitable accommodation'.

It is a blatant breach of the Building Regulations to have a bathroom with a toilet and no handbasin or taps.

The Health Act defines an "unsanitary building", and it is indisputable that according to the legislative criteria both of the properties in question is an "unsanitary building"!

Despite a letter from a doctor stating that it was unacceptable and unsafe, 'Kainga Ora' enlisted Police to trump up more unfounded and corruptly laid charges against their elderly client's caregiver and force the vulnerable client into another unsanitary building!

 

 

 

 

 

Constitutional law in 'New Zealand' - what decolonisation really looks like:

 The first law of the land know as "New Zealand" or "Nu Tirene" (ironically pronounced: New Tyranny) was and is Te Ture Tikanga. 

The website of the New Zealand Legal Information Institute shows that the first officially recorded Constitutional law passed in this country, the foundation for all future law, was Te Whakaputanga o Nga Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene 1835,  The Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand.

The second constitutional law passed in this country, and the first attempt to form a sort of Colonial Government in New Zealand, to replace the debauchery, lawlessness and anarchy which had been prevailing among the newly arrived settlers, was on Tuesday, the 23rd May 1838, by the formation of the Kororareka Association, formed by a group of recent Pakeha immigrants living in the township of Kororareka (Russell, Bay of Islands) and its vicinity.  

The Kororareka Settlers Association Rules 1838, which purported to authorise a group of recent Pakeha immigrants to equip themselves with guns and ammunition and hunt down any of the natives who were suspected of "any theft, or connected with any robbery, or buying stolon goods knowing them to be stolon [sic], or harbouring a thief, or assisting a thief to get away without being brought to justice, the same person or persons be found guilty of any of the offences, shall be taken, to the tar-and-feathering shed and receive three coats of tar and feathers, and be then drummed off the beach into a boat and landed on the opposite side of the river, and never allowed to return to Kororaroka. "

The following month the Bill for the Provisional Government of British Settlements in the Islands of New Zealand [1838] was proposed in a further attempt at colonial governance.  The purpose of it is clearly stated - to take the land from the native owners in the most patronising, preposterous and sneaky manner possible:

 

 

 

 

 

Etc, Etc.

Then, in 1839, following the appointment of Hobson, and Lord Normanby's two sets of instructions to Hobson, there was the Provisional Constitution of the Port Nicholson (Poneke) Settlers Association.  This stated: "That in case a person shall commit any offence against the law of England, he shall be liable to be punished in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in England."

Conflict was clearly building with the native inhabitants in regard to the manner in which the English law was being applied vigilante style against native owners who were perceived to transgress the laws of England - of which they had no knowledge whatsoever, or native owners who didn't want to sell their land.  

 There followed various proclamations:

Firstly there was a Proclamation by George Gipps extending Boundaries of New South Wales to include New Zealand.  Then there was another Proclamation by Gipps appointing Hobson as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand.  Then there was a Proclamation by Gipps restricting Land Sales in New Zealand and another Proclamation by Hobson re Land Purchases - in case anyone missed the bit about the queen restricting land sales and not recognisng any settlers title as valid. 

"Her Majesty will not acknowledge as valid any title to land which either has been or shall be hereafter acquired in that country, which is not either derived from or confirmed by a grant to be made in Her Majesty’s name, and on Her behalf, but that care shall be taken at the same time to dispel any apprehension that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any land acquired on equitable conditions, and not in extent or otherwise prejudicial to the present or prospective interests of the community, to be investigated and reported on by Commissioners to be Appointed by Me, with such powers as may be conferred upon them by an Act of the Governor and Council of New South Wales: Now I, the Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief aforesaid, do hereby Proclaim and Declare such to be Her Majesty’s Commands, for the information and guidance of all parties interested; and I do further Proclaim and Declare that all purchases of land in any part of New Zealand which may be made by any of Her Majesty’s subjects from any of the Native Chiefs or Tribes of these Islands, after the date hereof will be considered as absolutely null and void, and neither confirmed nor in any way recognised by Her Majesty." - Gibbs

And "Her Majesty does not deem it expedient to recognize any titles to land in New Zealand which are not derived from or confirmed by Her Majesty as aforesaid; but in order to dispel any apprehension that it is intended to dispossess the owners of any land acquired on equitable conditions, and not in extent or otherwise prejudicial to the present or prospective interests of the community, I do hereby further proclaim and declare, that Her Majesty has been pleased to direct that a Commission shall be appointed, with certain powers, to be derived from the Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales, to inquire into and report on all claims to such lands, and that all persons having any such claims will be required to prove the same before the said Commission when appointed. And I do further proclaim and declare, that all purchases of land in any part of New Zealand, which may be made from any of the chiefs or Native tribes thereof, after the date of these presents, will be considered as absolutely null and void, and will not be confirmed or in any way recognized by Her Majesty." - Hobson

This is the context in which Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 was signed.  The wording of it is clearly intended to assure the Native Owners of the land that their tino rangatiratanga over all their whenua, tikanga, and all their other taonga, would be protected.  The wording of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was deliberately deceitful.

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka.

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka (The Black Hand) was born in 1941at Parawhenua.  He grew up on his lands at  Parawhenua Pakonga, Ohaeawae, Taiamai, Ngawha, Pouerua, Waitangi, the awa and moana o Waitangi, Omapere, Ipipiri, Pewhairangi, from Pouerua to Rakaumangamanga.

He was born at home on the whenua at Pakonga, in a one room home without electricity that he shared with his parents and eight siblings.  In due course he attended Te Ahuahu Native School, where he was awarded dux of the school.  He recalls the prize, three books: Moby Dick, Dambusters, and Under Sealed Orders.  

He recalled the occasion when the teacher, a Mr Fleming, asked the tamariki "Who knows the name of the native trout?"  Due to the effects of colonisation, which had drummed into them the need to speak the English language at all times, there was silence as the students tried to think what it could be, finally Te Ringa Mangu put his ringa mangu iti (little black hand) up and said "Kokopu". 

He purloined an education by slipping into university lecture halls and listening, and thinking for himself.  He associated with other constructive thinkers (sometimes referred to as "activists", etc).  

When rudely confronted with the law saying ‘no Māori may use his language in the Courts of New Zealand if he can speak English, and the claim by the judge that, as a result of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the laws of England suddenly apply to the whole of 'Nu Tireni', Mihaka stood up and said "Kahore!" and challenged the Statute of Pleading aka the Pleading in English Act 1362, all the way to the Privy Council, on the grounds that Te Reo was a "taonga" according to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  He uttered the famous words "He taonga te reo" - the language is a "taonga" or 'treasured belonging'.  "Ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa."

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka, aka 'Dun' Mihaka, appealed to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal when the District Court refused to let him address the Court in te reo Māori.  Acting for himself, Mihaka relied on the Treaty of Waitangi. While the Court of Appeal agreed that ‘the use of the Māori language in New Zealand is a matter of public importance’, it ruled that the treaty had no legal bearing on the matter. The court based its decision on the English common law that applied in New Zealand from 1840.  

This was a reflection of the view infamously expressed by Prendergast J in 1877 that the treaty was "worthless" and a "simple nullity" because it was signed "between a civilised nation and a group of savages" who were not capable of signing a treaty.

 Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka has commenced a criminal prosecution on behalf of Te Wakaminenga o nga Tino Rangatira against government officials, following the fraudulent misuse of a document bearing the signatures and personal information of over sixty kuia kaumatua of Waitangi marae, after Police refused to prosecute the offender - claiming it "wasn't in the public interest".  Not only is the prosecution in the public interest, but it is in the public interest to conduct a review of the refusal of Police to prosecute, and the ongoing obstruction of Police, who refused to serve the summons following the decision of Judge Hastings ordering that it be accepted for filing, Police then also refused to apply for a production order according to the Search and Surveillance Act, which limits the ability to "an enforcement officer" as defined by that Act, in ongoing attempts to obstruct and pervert the course of justice.

The history of Parihaka

 

Remember, remember, the 5th of November 1881.  The day the armed constabulary - armed police - attacked the unarmed and peaceful inhabitants of Parihaka pa.  

Please feel free to share this short film about the history of the tangata whenua (people) of Parihaka, it should be an essential component of the education curriculum.

 

Maori Agents - challenging flawed laws:

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.

Second brief of evidence of Katherine Amanda Furfie, HNZC:

We recently received the second brief of evidence of Housing New Zealand Corporation manager Kathy Furfie, which can be viewed in its original form at this link.

Starting with paragraph 4.  Ms Furfie was sitting in the back of the room during the hearing on 3 August, and heard the exchange that took place regarding the statement Ms Furfie alleges she dutifully recorded from the complainant, Warren Frederick Dickie.

This exchange can be read at this link to the second part of the transcript of the hearing.  Page 13 onwards is of particular interest, and from page 23 onwards it becomes extremely interesting indeed.

Mr Mihaka's Maori agent pointed out that the policies and procedures of Housing New Zealand Corporation clearly document the processes to be followed, starting with taking a detailed written statement from the complainant and recording it on a "T-463 incident summary form or on a note pad if you do not have a form with you.":

When Mr Mihaka's Maori agent raised this, and pointed out that we'd never seen any statement from Dickie - apart from the slanderous and defamatory one we recently acquired from Police (see the transcript), the Tribunal made the extraordinary comment that if everyone followed policy we'd never get anything done - like evicting cheeky darkies from their homes for example:

We asked Housing New Zealand Corporation, and their solicitors, for a copy of the statement that Kathy Furfie alleges she received - and was supposed to have recorded - from Warren Frederick Dickie - we've asked for it repeatedly, as well as the identity of the Police officer who Housing NZ Corporation allege told them the defamatory lies about Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use etc.  The requests have been repeatedly ignored or refused, and Kathy Furfie is coming dangerously close to committing perjury as defined in the Crimes Act, as are other parties who have knowingly provided other false information to Courts and Tribunals regarding this matter.

Police have categorically denied the allegations of HNZC, and it is clear that Kathy Furfie's claims to have visited Dickie and recorded a statement of complaint from him as claimed in her briefs of evidence is an orchestrated litany of lies and half truths.  HNZC staff have simply engaged in a series of breaches of privacy and slanderous and defamatory little gossip sessions!

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.

HRRT hearing cancelled until further notice:

Just received, email from Human Rights Review Tribunal, cancelling hearing scheduled for tomorrow and Wednesday:

Dear Mr Mihaka, Ms Raue, Ms Cuncannon and Ms Shaw
As you know, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake struck New Zealand at 12.02am today.  As a consequence, all Ministry of Justice sites in Wellington have been closed until further notice while buildings are checked by engineers.  In addition members of the public have been asked to stay away from central Wellington until at least this evening.  No trains are running and there are no replacement bus services.

At the time of writing it is not known when these circumstances will change sufficiently to allow the resumption of hearings at the Tribunals Unit.

In these circumstances the Chairperson has directed that I give formal notification that the hearing scheduled to commence at 10am tomorrow, Tuesday 15 November 2016 is of necessity cancelled.

I hope to be in touch with you shortly to arrange a new date of hearing.

If you or your witnesses have availability issues between now and March 2017 please let me know by 5pm on Wednesday 16 November 2016.

Yours sincerely
Helen

 Which is just as well - the Office of Human Rights Proceedings are still, as of this morning, trying to claim that they haven't received our application for assistance, despite admitting that they HAVE received it, they just can't access it - still - because of the incompetence of their Information Technology department, who have admitted that they - still - can't access ten whole days worth of emails 'since they moved to the cloud' - incompetence is bad enough but blaming others is completely unacceptable!

We will be applying for a prerogative writ of certiorari to confirm that they HAVE received it!

Ken Shirley and other political cronies:

Brian Neeson
Ravi Musuku
Ken Shirley

.

(L-R) Brian Neeson – Ken Shirley – Ravi Musuku

.
All three men were appointed to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.  All three have connections to National, or in Ken Shirley’s case, to ACT, one of National’s coalition partners.
Brian Neeson
Party positions held:

• National Party MP 1990 – 2002

Government appointments:

• Appointed to Human Rights Review Tribunal by Justice Minister Simon Power, in December 2009.

The appointment was made by the Minister –  without being interviewed, as is the usual process,
““It is the chair’s view that without interviews by an appropriately selected interview panel, the process will not provide an opportunity to properly assess the candidates suitability,” advice to Power in July last year said.

“The required skills cannot be evaluated without interview. He [Mr Hindle] has also expressed concern that the suggested appointment of member without interview would be at odds with the practice of past years“.” – Source

Which was unfortunate, as Neeson has a shocking record for anti-gay/lesbian beliefs that can only be described as homophobic.  He consistently voted against including gays/lesbians in protective Human Rights legislation and voted against legislation to outlaw employment discrimination based on gender. (See ” National’s version of ‘human rights’ ” at Tumeke, for full details.)

It is difficult to understand how someone of Mr Neeson’s beliefs can contribute to human rights issues in NZ, unless his appointment is specifically designed to curtail human rights for women and minority groups?
.
Ravi Musuku
Party positions held:

• National party candidate in Mt Albert Electorate in 2005 and 2008 general elections

Government appointments:

• Appointed to Human Rights Review Tribunal by Justice Minister Simon Power, in December 2009.

.
Ken Shirley

Party positions held:

• Labour Party MP 1984- 1990
• Ranked third on ACT Party List for 1996 elections
• ACT Party MP 1996- 2006

Government appointments:

• Appointed to Human Rights Review Tribunal by Justice Minister Simon Power, in December 2009.

Statement on Maori:
“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

Hopefully Mr Shirley’s anti-Treaty and knee-jerk anti-Maori  beliefs will not be carried over to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

.

.(Acknowledgement: Frank Macskasy, David M. and Tumeke)

Emails from Police - further evidence of gross incompetence at a senior level:

Ross Grantham

 Police officer Ross Grantham's got form, as reported during the trial of Mark Lundy for the murder of his wife and daughter.

23 July 2016:
ross.grantham@police.govt.nz,
infringements@police.govt.nz,
Independent Police Conduct Authority <Complaint.Management@ipca.govt.nz>,
"MCCORMICK, Stephen" <stephen.mccormick@police.govt.nz>
cc:    Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka and Diane Prince,

Tena koutou katoa

Regarding infringement notices PV2529205 and PV2511888 and formal complaint about actions of Police, information requests, as previously discussed.

Infringement notice PV2529205 was issued at Mata at 9:55 pm on Friday 27.05.2016 by officer DBW242, who explained that due to a minor administrative matter which Mr Mihaka was unaware of his drivers license was not considered to be "appropriate" because he hadn't "reinstated" it after a period of disqualification ended.  Officer DBW242 rightly and reasonably offered "Compliance" to Mr Mihaka, explaining that if Mr Mihaka reinstated his license within 14 days and provided proof of that to Police within that time (which we did) the $400 fine would be waived.

Mr Mihaka did reinstate his license immediately and advise Police in accordance with the instructions given, and I witnessed it as did one of Mr Mihaka's health care workers.  Despite posting a copy of Mr Mihaka's reinstated license to Police Infringement Bureau, P O Box 9147, Wellington 6141, in accordance with the directions on the Notices, Mr Mihaka has recently been informed that the amount of $800 is currently being deducted from his extremely limited income, as well as other deductions arising from Police actions against Mr Mihaka which are the subject of current proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

We request that the fines are remitted and the money deducted from Mr Mihaka is returned.  It was cruel and inhumane to leave Mr Mihaka all night in his car and it is an insult to justice to add $800 of fines on top of that as well as the over $250 it cost Mr Mihaka to travel home and back to get his car etc.

Mr Mihaka and I are finding it difficult to write letters endlessly to various Police officers about these matters when our correspondence is then lost or ignored, we have very limited resources.  I note that our original information requests were lost, now it seems that the copy of the reinstated license has also been lost.  Please confirm whether or not Police have access to the information regarding Mr Mihaka's reinstatement of his license - surely Police are able to confirm exactly when Mr Mihaka reinstated his license by way of checking information on their databases and "information sharing" with the relevant agencies, and this should be done automatically before a fine is issued - like many people who have limited incomes and resources we pay taxes and Police have the required technology to do this, there is no reason not to do it, it would surely save on administrative costs, as would not losing our information requests.

Mr Mihaka attended a hapu hui on 28th and 29th May and was returning to his home in Paraparaumu on Monday 30th May, as he had advised the officer at Mata he was going to do, when he was apprehended by officer LHAA94 at 7:25 pm at National Park.  Mr Mihaka says that the officer refused to listen to his explanation that he had been unaware of the requirement to "reinstate" his license until alerted to it by the officer at Mata, and that he was on his way straight home to attend to the matter immediately in accordance with the compliance condition agreed with the officer at Mata.  He says he was polite and respectful toward both officers, and other officers involved in this incident reported to me that Mr Mihaka had been polite and respectful toward them too, particularly under the circumstances.

Mr Mihaka states that officer LHAA94 displayed clear bias towards him, she was rude, abusive and aggressive and stated "I know that you have a bad habit of beating up on women" and implied that she was going to teach him a lesson for that, regardless of the fact that he's served his time, after he tried to explain that he was on his way straight home after the hapu hui and planned to attend to the matter immediately upon his return home.

Instead of allowing him reasonable time to remedy the "inappropriate" license issue in accordance with the notice issued two days previously, as Mr Mihaka explained he was on his way to do at the earliest opportunity, officer LHAA94 unreasonably decided to an infringement notice denying compliance and fining Mr Mihaka $400.  She then apparently called for reinforcements from other officers, and confiscated Mr Mihaka's keys, leaving him stranded on a narrow and dangerous grass verge on a main highway, all night in freezing temperatures, with no working phone and no way of heating his car.  This is outrageous and completely unacceptable, it is bullying, it is bias against Mr Mihaka because he is a Maori, and a political activist with a history of asserting his rights against an unjust legal system.  Mr Mihaka states that officer LHAA94 was deliberately antagonistic, rude, unreasonable, and inhumane.  Mr Mihaka has served his time for any assaults he committed in the past and he continues to feel unjustly discriminated against regarding the clearly flawed conviction secured by the Crown State Police Court and Mr Dickie recently.
When Mr Mihaka was taken for a medical check following his being forced to spend the night in his unheated car with no phone, food, drink, medication, etc, his doctor was concerned enough to write a letter addressed to whom it may concern stating the following:
    "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."
Which is considerably more than Warren Frederick Dickie's doctor had to say following Mr Dickie's confused, conflicting and unreliable allegations against Mr Mihaka which Police were so quick to act upon!
We previously requested all information Police hold or held regarding this incident at National Park, and have as yet received no information about it whatsoever, we would appreciate it if this was provided without further delay please.
I will forward a copy of the letter from Mr Mihaka's doctor, and another copy of his drivers license if necessary, as soon as I can access the necessary resources to do so - in the meantime, the words above can be verified by Dr Chris Fawcett of Hora Te Pai medical centre in Paraparaumu, the number is in the phone book, I'm sure Hora Te Pai can fax you a copy of the letter if necessary.  This is a formal complaint regarding the actions of officer LHAA94, as discussed previously, and a request for all information regarding the incident involving her and Mr Mihaka and other officers at National Park on 30 May 2016 and following the event - Mr Mihaka and I also attempted to show Mr Mihaka's reinstated license to the officer who was in attendance at National Park when we went to collect Mr Mihaka's vehicle a few days later and ask that he verify it or copy it and email or fax it to the Police infringement section as neither Mr Mihaka or I have a copier or a fax machine, we did all we could to provide proof to Police that it had been reinstated promptly in accordance with the compliance offered by the officer in Mata, the officer at National Park refused to even look at Mr Mihaka's license when we collected the car.
There is also the matter of the Disclosure provided recently regarding the allegations of Warren Frederick Dickie, and the fact that there is a deletion of about four lines to the statement of Mr Dickie, the complainant - Mr Mihaka is entitled to an UNREDACTED copy of this statement in accordance with the Criminal Disclosure Act and it is required URGENTLY for proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal.  I previously emailed a number of officers about this, it appears they are all on leave or simply not inclined to respond, please provide an unredated copy of the statement of Warren Frederick Dickie without further delay or I will apply for a Court Order for it.
Please provide all information regarding communication between Constable Michael Tahere and Housing New Zealand Corporation about Mr Mihaka, whether written down or otherwise recorded or not.
Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka
______________________________________
25 July 2016
Good morning Katherine,

I write to confirm I have received this message from you and that I am forwarding it to Senior Sergeant Lance Kennedy, Central District Professional Conduct lead for him to record your complaints and ensure they are followed up.

I cannot comment on the requests you have made I I did not receive them personally but I am sure Lance or his investigator will be in touch seeking all the details so that this can be investigated appropriately.

Lance for your attention please.

Ross Grantham
Deployment Manager
Central District
______________________________________
4 October 2016
Tena koe Sgt Grantham,
We wrote to you some time ago, stating the following (inter alia):

When Mr Mihaka was taken for a medical check following his being forced to spend the night in his unheated car with no phone, food, drink, medication, etc, his doctor was concerned enough to write a letter addressed to whom it may concern stating the following:
    "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."
Which is considerably more than Warren Frederick Dickie's doctor had to say following Mr Dickie's confused, conflicting and unreliable allegations against Mr Mihaka which Police were so quick to act upon!
We previously requested all information Police hold or held regarding this incident at National Park, and have as yet received no information about it whatsoever, we would appreciate it if this was provided without further delay please."

Your response stated:

"Good morning Katherine,
I write to confirm I have received this message from you and that I am forwarding it to Senior Sergeant Lance Kennedy, Central District Professional Conduct lead for him to record your complaints and ensure they are followed up.
I cannot comment on the requests you have made I I did not receive them personally but I am sure Lance or his investigator will be in touch seeking all the details so that this can be investigated appropriately.
Lance for your attention please.
Ross
Ross Grantham
Deployment Manager
Central District"

We are writing today to inform you that neither Mr Mihaka or I have never heard from Lance.  We consider this to be totally and utterly unacceptable.

We insist that these complaints are escalated without delay and a competent senior officer engage in meaningful communication regarding these matters without further delay as it is clear that Police is a deeply dysfunctional organisation with no effective oversight.
______________________________________

Aroha mai - I omitted to include the 'Independent' Police Conduct Authority in the  greeting which began my previous email, and note that most of the matters in our original complaint have not been addressed - some three months later.

Not only haven't we heard from Lance but we haven't received much of the information we requested including all information regarding communications between Constable Michael Tahere (and any other Police) and Housing New Zealand Corporation.

In short, our complaints have been mainly ignored and we wish to escalate them, and we insist that the so called Independent Police Conduct Authority starts to actually act with independence and some degree of speed, and address these complaints properly and independently.

Katherine Raue
for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka
________________________________________

I am not sure why you have included me in this email, but I am unable to respond to any of your comments/ requests as they are not directed at any matter dealt with at Porirua Station.

Any matter regarding your Official Information Requests should be directed to Wellington.OIA@police.govt.nz

Steve McCormick
Station Sergeant : Kapiti-Mana
Phone Ext 45038 DDI 04 2381438
______________________________________
Sgt McCormick - you have been included because these matters DO involve you - YOU are the subject of our formal complaints!  As are the staff you command, including those officers involved in the so called investigation of Warren Frederick Dickie's complaints and the prosecution of Mr Mihaka - despite the FACT that Warren Frederick Dickie's statement to Police is utterly and completely contradicted by his sworn evidence and the FACT that Mr Mihaka was never provided with Disclosure by your prosecutor - despite the LIES of one of your other officers who claims that he was!!!

YOU "lost" the information request and have failed to provide any sort of reasonable explanation or proper apology for LOSING the request, and failed to address our complaints, or forward them to the appropriate person, serious complaints which were conveyed to you IN PERSON!

Not to mention the FACT that Housing New Zealand Corporation continues to claim that Police told them Mr Mihaka lives in a suspected P house and smokes methamphetamine while Police continue to FAIL to provide all information regarding the communication between Constable Michael TAHERE and HNZC - by officers from your station apparently - if you don't want to deal with this then FORWARD THESE COMPLAINTS TO SOMEONE WHO WILL WITHOUT DELAY!

Your response is unbelievable - it is extremely offensive and adds insult to injury!!!
______________________________________
Good afternoon Katherine,
Do you have a phone number I can call you on please?
Ross
______________________________________
Alternatively you can either ring me or text me 021 1920 434 and I can call you back to save costs.
Ross
______________________________________
5 October 2016
Good afternoon Katherine,

I messaged you yesterday asking for a phone number or for you to text me and I haven’t heard back.
I want to apologise in person because the message I sent to you on 25 July said I had forwarded your queries to Professional Standards Lance Kennedy. In fact I had failed to enter his name in the email address, so he did not receive it.

As I had sent it back to you I failed to realise my mistake and thought he was working on your request. When I received your messages yesterday I immediately spoke with Lance asking him what he had done and he advised he had not received the original message and I checked back to discover my mistake.

He now has your complaint and has already contacted the IPCA to work through it.

I apologise for my mistake. As I say I do want to apologise in person so if you can send me a contact number I will call you.

Thanks you Ross
______________________________________

Good afternoon Katherine,

I messaged you yesterday asking for a phone number or for you to text me and I haven’t heard back.
I want to apologise in person because the message I sent to you on 25 July said I had forwarded your queries to Professional Standards Lance Kennedy. In fact I had failed to enter his name in the email address, so he did not receive it.

As I had sent it back to you I failed to realise my mistake and thought he was working on your request. When I received your messages yesterday I immediately spoke with Lance asking him what he had done and he advised he had not received the original message and I checked back to discover my mistake.

He now has your complaint and has already contacted the IPCA to work through it.
I apologise for my mistake. As I say I do want to apologise in person so if you can send me a contact number I will call you.

Thanks you Ross
______________________________________
Hi Katherine, would you mind sending me your contact phone number please.
Ross
______________________________________
Tena koe Ross,
I will NOT be providing you with my phone number because I am not interested in engaging in nebulous verbal dialogue regarding these matters especially after the way in which our correspondence has been dealt with - or NOT dealt with to date.

Due to the unacceptable and ongoing problems with communication to date, and indisputable evidence of incompetence, dishonesty, prejudice and bias by Police, we will only engage in WRITTEN communication with Police regarding these matters.

This is a formal complaint regarding your refusal to deal with these matters professionally, refusal to engage in meaningful communication, and failure to pass on our complaints - on top of all the other incompetence and dishonesty and prejudice and bias associated with these matters!

This is a formal complaint regarding the LIES about emailing Mr Mihaka the Disclosure - we have double checked Mr Mihaka's email account and can assure you that Disclosure was NOT emailed to him - and the office who claims that it was is a LIAR!  Police's actions in blacking out the last four lines of Dickie's statement are clear evidence of collusion with HNZC to pervert the course of justice!
______________________________________

Email exchange with Acting Registrar regarding application for recall of France J's decision:

 24 August 2016

To the Registrar, High Court, Wellington

Attached is an urgent application for recall of the judgment of France J on the grounds that new evidence has become available which clearly establishes reasonable doubt regarding the evidence of the complainant and Police, the application includes a request for waiver of filing fee.

This decision is vitally relevant to proceedings currently before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, for this reason we request it be dealt with URGENTLY as a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, it is clear that the Court discriminated unfairly against Mr Mihaka and that his previous lawyers acted negligently in not bringing these matters to the attention of the Court during the previous appeals.

Mr Mihaka and I lack the necessary resources to copy and attach the attachments referred to in the application, they can be viewed at this link.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

7 September 2016:
To the Registrar of the High Court at Wellington:

I emailed an urgent application for recall of a judgment of Simon France J in the matter of Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka v Police, including an application for waiver of any applicable fee, to the High Court at Wellington on 25th August 2016 but have not had any response to the application or acknowledgment of receipt, and am writing to confirm that it has been received and is being actioned.

Please acknowledge receipt of the application urgently - this matter is the subject of imminent hearing in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and it is vital that the application for recall is acknowledged prior to this hearing.  There has been a serious, substantial miscarriage of justice, there is fresh evidence, and this application is URGENT.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9 September 2016

Hello Katherine
I refer to the Application for Recall of Decision referred to in your email below.
Please advise the legislation you rely on to file the application and have the judgment of Simon France J recalled as I have not been able to find any reference in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 which allows the filing of this application some 14 months after the decision was made.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards
Sheena

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

to Sheena

11.9 - http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0089/latest/DLM1819172.html?search=sw_096be8ed81324d21_recall_25_se&p=1&sr=3

Alternatively, 2.3 -
"the miscarriage of justice is serious and the information was not made available within 5 working days - the application was made as soon as the information was made available by the other party."
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0089/latest/DLM1818573.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both rule references relate to Appeals and Reviews in the Civil jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Criminal jurisdiction, which is what your appeal relates to.  The criminal appeal process is governed by the Criminal Procedure Act not the Judicature Act.  I am therefore unable to accept the Application for Recall.

I respectfully suggest seek legal advice as to what other options might be available to you to have Mr Mihaka's conviction readdressed in the Courts.

Kind regards

Sheena

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tena koe Sheena,
We refer to para 61 and others in the attached Law Commission report.
Na Katherine Raue
Maori Agent for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

22 September 2016:

Hello Katherine,

I acknowledge receipt of your email.  I have forwarded these emails (dated 20/9/16) and the Application for Recall that was attached to your first email (dated 24/8/16) to the civil manager, Jay Fealofani.  I will speak with him regarding our previous correspondence and discuss a way forward.

Kind regards

Sheena

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Katherine,

I have spoken to my colleague Jay Fealofani in the civil jurisdiction regarding your original attachment 'Application for Recall of Judgment' - he also has a number of years' experience in the criminal jurisdiction in the District Court. 

I understand that the grounds for the recall are due to a miscarriage of justice because fresh evidence has become available which was not previously considered by the Court.  Your Application then goes on to describe the miscarriage.

Mr Mihaka's Appeal original appeal to this court was in relation to a Judge alone trial held before Her Honour Judge Kelly in the District Court in April 2015.  His first right of appeal against his conviction and sentence was to this Court.  This court heard the appeal on 2 June 2015 and gave its decision on 11 June 2015.  As discussed previously there is no avenue in the Criminal Procedure Act for Mr Mihaka to recall the decision of this court.

In accordance with the Act Mr Mihaka has a second right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.  To commence a second appeal Mr Mihaka needed to file an Application for Leave to Appeal in the Court of Appeal within 20 working days after this Court's decision.

He is now in a position where the Application for Recall cannot be accepted for filing in this court and the time to appeal to the Court of Appeal has expired.  I can see no action available to him through the criminal jurisdiction and this Application will not be progressed any further.

As to whether Mr Mihaka has the option to file a Judicial Review in the civil jurisdiction, that I don't know however Mr Mihaka cannot expect to continue relitigating matters based on further evidence he has found.  He needs to seek legal advice around what his options are if he wishes to progress these matters.

Kind regards

Sheena

Sheena Spiers Criminal Manager (Acting) | High Court, Wellington  Phone: +64 4 914 3619 | Ext: 53619 www.courtsofnz.govt.nz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, we have a stalemate.  The Crown makes all the rules of this game, and changes them to suit - retrospectively if so desired.  If you don't get your act together within 20 days you simply miss out - regardless of the magnitude of the injustice.

And all the time the colonial Crown government have been screwing down 'omnibus' changes to the  legislation regarding criminal and civil Court procedure, to limit the avalanche of claims resulting from the devolving of the system and the privatising of the justice system (along with everything else that's not nailed down), they've been limiting access to legal aid more and more to the point where it's just become an absolute joke - a black joke, a sick joke - a joke on people like Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka and all the other tangata whenua who clog up the 'justice system' and fill the jails, their lives in tatters and their reputations in ruins because of gossip and whispers.

Agent Raue will be framing a further plea to the Court applying sections 237 - 240 of the Criminal Procedure Act, this report will be updated shortly with the further plea.  We also have Plans C, D, E and FU up our sleeves and can come up with more plans if none of those work too.

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.