Housing NZ Corporation - caught out making it up again:

Upon arriving at the Human Rights Review Tribunal on 3rd August 2016 it was discovered that Crown solicitors Meredith Connell had sent Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent a large amount of information the previous day, including Housing NZ Corporation's "Anti Social Behaviour Guidelines" management plan.

While attempting to read this new information at the same time as engaging with the Tribunal Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent noticed that there were clear policies and procedures required which had not been followed.  In particular, it was noticed that Housing NZ Corporation was required to obtain a detailed statement from the person making the allegation, in this case, Mr Warren Frederick Dickie.

It is quite clear that Housing NZ Corporation treated Mr Dickie and Mr Mihaka quite differently, and it is quite clear that Housing NZ Corporation have discriminated against Mr Mihaka, and it appears that the only real difference between the two is their ethnic background, Mr Mihaka being he uri o nga tangata whenua and Mr Dickie being a pakeha.

Police also have recently admitted to "an unconscious bias against Maori", and it is widely recognised that Maori are over represented in the justice system. 

Mr Mihaka in particular has been let down by the justice system.  Judge Kelly had a duty to view the evidence and weigh it up and assess credibility of the parties accurately.  She failed to even notice the serious discrepancy between the Police Summary of 'Facts', Mr Dickie's statement to Police, and the evidence given on oath.

Housing NZ Corporation's Guidelines clearly state that staff are required to comply with the Privacy Act when collecting, storing or using information.  It is clear and indisputable that they have deliberately ignored and flouted these "Guidelines", as well as showing an utterly arrogant disregard for the law.

The Guidelines state that Housing NZ Corporation are required to take a detailed statement from the complainant - it is clear to anyone reading the Guidelines that this statement is required to be IN WRITING, and signed by the complainant - "write everything down in an incident summary form (T-463) or on a notepad if you do not have a form with you.":

Reference to an interpreter seems to have been ignored - Mr Mihaka speaks Maori, it is his first language, it is also one of our official languages, however Housing NZ Corporation decided that an interpreter was not needed when dealing with Mr Mihaka, despite the obvious communication difficulties.

"Place a copy [of this statement] in the S drive . . .  using appropriate folder and subfolder and make sure a copy is put on the tenant hard file."

It was not until after 3pm that the Maori Agent noticed this requirement in the Guidelines and began to question Meredith Connell as to the whereabouts of this statement.

To their great discredit, after consulting with Kathie Furfie of Housing New Zealand Corporation, the Meredith Connell solicitors dishonestly tried to assert that such a statement HAD been taken, but not put to paper.  The irony of being accused of "artificiality" by the Tribunal is offensive given the blatant dishonesty and lack of good faith shown by Housing NZ Corporation and their tax payer funded Crown solicitors, Meredith Connell, - they are blatantly LYING - there was no statement recorded - Housing NZ Corporation never bothered to even take a statement from Mr Dickie prior to their decision to evict Mr Mihaka on the basis of common gossip and a pack of LIES cooked up by Mr Dickie!

Nothing whatsoever was written down - no statement was recorded.  Meredith Connell and HNZC continued trying to blatantly lie about this to the point where it is now clear that they are subsidised by the taxpayer and deliberately using those resources to discriminate against and bully tangata whenua and deliberately pervert the course of justice and continue to do so through every Crown colonial Court and Tribunal in the land, and those Courts and Tribunals simply carry on the charade - a big gravy train - a merry go round, shunting tangata whenua and M(atua) Mihaka through a series of flaming hoops, moving the goalposts, rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic - while Sir Ron Young and others raise the alarm and plead for lawyers to blow the whistle before it's too late.  Sadly, they did that a few years ago, but only in terms of how it affected the income of lawyers, not the effect on their hapless victims clients, the decision upheld the claim, and can be found at this link- Criminal Bar Association v Attorney General.

Proceedings deteriorated markedly following this revelation and Meredith Connell's strenuous assertion that a statement WAS taken, just not written down, and the hearing did not end well, it being evident to everyone that Meredith Connell were LYING and that the required statement did not exist and never did.

Maori Agent Raue and Mr Matua Mihaka also questioned the statement of Ms Stephanie Smith to the District Court Tenancy Tribunal - which appear to be clear evidence of blatant perjury:

Adjudicator:

"Obviously there's a feeling over here that there's been something unjustified about that decision.  This is an opportunity to respond to that if you wish,  Are you aware of what's behind that?"

Ms [Stephanie] Smith [for HNZC]:
"I am, the 90 day notice was issued prior to us breaching the tenant for the alleged assault."

 What utter bollocks!

Then there's the letter from Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka's lawyer Nathan Bourke to Police and NZ Police's response - which categorically DENIES the claims Housing NZ Corporation made about information ALLEGEDLY received from Police!

This is nothing but an orchestrated litany of lies which has made its way through the District Court the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and justice has STILL not been done!

The so called New Zealand justice system is nothing but a sham - a sick joke!  A revenue gathering machine designed to fleece tangata whenua and the working classes while lining the pockets of shady bankers and financial speculators and other fellow liars in the old boys network!

Maori did not cede sovereignty and never agreed to be governed like this - FOR GOOD REASON!  This is NOT justice and will NOT be tolerated.

Police deny Housing NZ Corporation's claims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eventually the following statement was provided:

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

This is a very serious discrepancy.

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

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

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

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

Making up the rules, moving the goalposts:

Lo and behold, Kathy Irvine of the IPCA has just decided that "In the matter of Mr Mihaka being left in his vehicle, as he is an adult ie over the age of 18 years, he is required by this office to submit his own complaint.  This can be done on our website."

What a joke.  Mr Mihaka is seventy five years old.  He tried to submit his own complaint on the IPCA website but had difficulty doing so, and there is no good reason why his appointed Maori agent should not submit a complaint on his behalf, supported by indisputable and compelling evidence. 

Evidence such as a letter from Mr Mihaka's doctors regarding the actions of Police, stating: 

"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."

We will be applying to have this decision judicially reviewed - and what a waste of time and money!  Kathy Irvine is a cheat, who twists the truth and makes up the rules as she goes along, paid to lie, and fob people off, like many of the staff at the IPCA, and other so called 'investigative bodies' - they are NOT 'investigative' at all, they're object and aim and full intent is to cover up for incompetence and corruption - tax payer funded incompetence and corruption.

And defamation, and slander.  Click on the link to view the letter from lawyer Nathan Bourke to Police spelling it out.

The price of Crown colonial 'justice' - legal aid - aiding pettifogger lawyers or their hapless clients?

Following the receipt of this Minute from the Human Rights Review Tribunal in April Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent have repeatedly attempted to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with lawyers John Gwilliam and Nathan Bourke, to no avail.

Of particular interest, and the cause of considerable offence to Mr Mihaka, is the statement "There is a real possibility Mr Mihaka is confused."

It is clear that Mr Mihaka is not confused; Mr Dickie is confused.  NZ Police and the Courts seem to be also confused.

Two week ago we emailed lawyers Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke thus:

Tena korua,
As discussed with you both previously, Dun urgently needs assistance with the proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and apparently hasn't received any response from Nathan Bourke.  His evidence is required to be filed in HRRT and is overdue.  Dun feels that in addition to HNZC discriminating against him, NZ Police have also discriminated against him, and also the Courts, and there is strong evidence to support this.  Attached is page 2 of the Minute of the HRRT dated 8 April regarding the question of whether Mr Gwilliam or Mr Bourke is going to represent Mr Mihaka. 

Many people believe that the issue of the major discrepancies in Warren Dickie's evidence - which were apparently not even mentioned at either appeal - warrant further scrutiny because it is clear that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and Dun did not receive a fair trial, as happens to other Maori every day in Courts throughout the country.

Neither Nathan Bourke's file or Brett Crowley's contained the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 June 2014, and neither Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley apparently noticed that the Summary of Facts was in direct contradiction to the evidence that Mr Dickie gave in Court.  These serious discrepancies were not addressed at either appeal, not even sighted by Mr Mihaka or his lawyers until very recently, and were vitally relevant to the matter of Mr Dickie's credibility. 

Now that we have received a copy of Mr Dickie's original statement to Police it is clear that his evidence is inconsistent to the point of being totally contradictory and simply not credible, and that there is relevant and important evidence which has not been addressed by any of the Courts at which the matter has been filed.  It seems that the reason these discrepancies were not brought to the attention of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is that none of the lawyers involved asked Mr Mihaka if he'd ever received Disclosure and if so where it was - the statement the complainant gave to Police and the Summary of Facts are in total contradiction to the evidence given by the complainant on oath and it is unbelievable that this was never brought to the attention of the Court - it is vitally relevant to the credibility of the complainant and it is insulting and abusive that Mr Mihaka continues to be labelled "confused" when it is perfectly clear and absolutely indisputable that the complainant, HCNZ, NZ Police and the Courts are confused!

Mr Dickie's statement to Police is at this link.  It states that the alleged assault occurred around nine or nine thirty at night, as he was getting ready to go to bed, and that Mr Dickie applied unwanted physical force to Mr Mihaka as Mr Mihaka was asleep.  Page 3 of this statement in particular warrants further scrutiny - several aspects of it are in direct contradiction to Mr Dickie's evidence on oath, Mr Dickie would more than likely have been unable to see whether or not one or both of Mr Mihaka's hands were on his throat due to human anatomical vision capabilities for one thing,

The NZ Police Summary of Facts (sic) likewise claims that the alleged incident occurred at around nine to nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was asleep:

- Furthermore, the allegation refers to Mr Mihaka as "Nathan Mihaka" a name he has always rejected and stated that he finds offensive in the extreme, and he believes that Police continue to refer to him by this name deliberately in order to cause ongoing offence - and there is clear and indisputable evidence of this.

- And note how the Police display bias - they ignore the fact that Mr Dickie "tapped him on the shoulder" while Mr Mihaka was asleep - stated in the statement to Police by Mr Dickie but omitted from the Summary of "Facts" (sic).

Now here is the evidence Mr Dickie gave on oath regarding the time this alleged incident occurred - a completely and utterly different version of events - events he now alleges happened "in the morning, when I got up around 7:30 or thereabouts . . . when I . . . turned the jug on to make a cup of coffee":

There is also clear evidence of exaggeration and embellishment on Mr Dickie's part - first Mr Dickie claims that Mr Mihaka applied force to him for "thirty seconds to one minute" and then doubles this for effect to "one to two minutes".  When asked what happened immediately afterwards Mr Dickie states he can't remember.  This memory failing is a repeated refrain in the evidence given in Court by Mr Dickie - it is clear that Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka, and the fact that Mr Dickie claims to have twice applied force to Mr Mihaka once allegedly at 7 - 7:30 in the morning and again at 9 - 9:30 at night, and is clearly so confused about things that he doesn't know when the incident took place let alone if it took place, clearly establishes REASONABLE DOUBT!

Police should have realised that Mr Dickie was not a reliable witness but they simply arrested Mr Mihaka the minute he opened his door when they knocked, demonstrating the usual politically and racially motivated bias.  The email to the lawyers continues thus:

Mr Mihaka has received disrespectful messages from Mr Bourke in the past, some of these messages indicate a clear refusal to accept reasonable instructions from Mr Mihaka, Mr Mihaka was under the impression that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, which is also what Mr Bourke told me, which is in contradiction to the bill Mr Mihaka has received for Mr Bourke's services; notwithstanding that, Mr Mihaka wishes Mr Bourke to finish the proceedings he started in the HRRT and has instructed Mr Bourke to do that.

We also reject the opinion that there is nothing Mr Mihaka can now do to challenge the unjust decision to convict him of assaulting Mr Dickie and formally instruct you to apply for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that the Courts failed to address the major discrepancies and factual errors referred to in the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 July, the prosecution Summary of Facts, and the evidence given on oath by the complainant.  To spell it out:  Mr Dickie's statement to Police (which Judges wrongly stated was made the day after the alleged assault) and the Summary of Facts (sic) both allege that the 'incident' occurred at around nine or nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was already asleep.

The complainant's evidence in Court was that the assault happened at around seven thirty in the morning after Mr Dickie got up and made coffee and Mr Mihaka was still asleep - NOT at night when Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed - the exact opposite of what he told Police in fact. 

Clearly Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka!  The only "fact" regarding an assault which is agreed is that Mr Dickie applied force deliberately to Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep. 

So Mr Dickie couldn't make up his mind whether this alleged incident happened in the morning or at night, and Police couldn't make up their mind which day it happened - alleging the 30th June 2014 in the Summary of Alleged Facts etc, but telling Mr Mihaka at the time of his arrest that he was charged with an incident that allegedly occurred on 1st July 2014:

Then there is the issue of the utterly non factual "information sharing" between NZ Police and Housing New Zealand Corporation and the defamatory allegations that Mr Mihaka "uses methamphetamine" and is a "serious cannabis smoker" and lives in a suspected "P house"!  Not to mention the equally untrue allegation made by HNZC ( - when considering whether to evict Mr Mihaka) that Mr Mihaka actually ADMITTED assaulting Mr Dickie - Mr Mihaka has always strenuously DENIED the allegation!

It seems that the relationship between Mr Bourke and Mr Mihaka broke down due to communication issues and misunderstandings.  Mr Mihaka and I have done all we can to facilitate the resolution of these matters and facilitate meaningful and constructive communication.  We note that Meredith Connell and Mr Gwiliam have been in communication and would appreciate it if Mr Gwilliam would ask Mr Bourke why he has failed to even respond to our messages and schedule an appointment as soon as possible to meet with Mr Mihaka and I as soon as possible, as Mr Bourke has failed to even respond to Mr Mihaka's messages and instructions, and we wish to discuss the issue of his bill, and the fact that he told Mr Mihaka and I that he was acting pro bono. 

Mr Mihaka says that he gave Mr Bourke a copy of the book Whakapohane for the specific and explicit purpose of Mr Bourke understanding the legal basis for Mr Mihaka's clear and explicit instructions to Mr Bourke, and the relevance of Mr Mihaka's history of constructive and meaningful peaceful protest and political activism, the relevance of the so called "flag debate" and the fact that over $26,000,000 was apparently spent ignoring the fact that despite the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, John Key completely ignored the fact that OUR flag, Te Kara o Te Whakaputanga, Te Hakituatahi, has never been decommissioned, we have TWO official languages, and TWO official flags, and Maori are being oppressed and treated with bias and prejudice - directly related to the credibility of Mr Dickie and the credibility of Mr Mihaka and the allegations of drug use and criminality.  Mr Mihaka also explained to Mr Bourke the relevance of the book to the dialogue between him and Mr Dickie leading up to the alleged incident.  Mr Mihaka feels that if Mr Bourke is not going to accept his instruction or even bother communication with us any further regarding these matters, especially when the evidence is so indisputable and the course of action is clearly to apply for a recall of France J's judgment on the grounds that the discrepancies were never addressed and they are directly relevant to the issue of credibility and they were not addressed because the duty solicitor never passed on the Disclosure to anyone, Mr Mihaka would like the book returned as soon as possible please.  If none of the lawyers involved are going to apply for the recall of the judgment I will, and I need the book to do that. 

Mr Bourke's messages to Mr Mihaka are unquestionably disrespectful and inappropriate (he refers to me as a crazy person in one of them), rather than make a formal complaint about this Mr Mihaka would prefer to meet face to face with me, Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to discuss the matter of the HRRT proceedings and the recall of France J's decision, which is more than reasonable in my humble opinion.

Mr Mihaka reiterates his instruction to Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to assist him with the proceedings in the HRRT - the matter is urgent, the date Mr Mihaka's evidence was due to be in has passed and HNZC and NZ Police continue to obfuscate and delay providing vital information such as which Police officer told HNZC the untrue allegations about Mr Mihaka, and what exactly "iwi liaison officer" Michael Tahere told HNZC, who told HNZC that Mr Mihaka admitted the allegations, HNZC continue to aggressively assert - via their tax payer funded lawyers, Meredith Connell, who Mr Gwilliam has been in communication regarding these matters - that HNZC don't need a reason to evict Mr Mihaka while the HRRT ironically accuses Mr Mihaka and I of being "disingenuous" and displaying "a degree of artificiality" in our communications - is is clear that the reason for the eviction was the ALLEGED assault and the false allegations of Police and Mr Dickie! 

There is a significant degree of artificiality in the evidence against Mr Mihaka and the manner in which he has been treated by NZ Police and the colonial Police/Crown Court legal system which Maori have been unlawfully subjected to since the days of the armed constabulary storming Parihaka, and the numerous ways the Crown have discriminated against Maori and denigrated their credibility and mana since their arrival on these shores - all Mr Mihaka asks is a FAIR hearing and the right to have these serious discrepancies in the case for the prosecution, this NEW EVIDENCE, addressed by the Court, because the alleged assault is CLEARLY the reason for the eviction despite the disingenuous and artificial arguments to the contrary from Meredith Connell and HNZC - who refuse to name the Police officer who told them Mr Mihaka uses methamphetamine and lives in a P house, which no doubt influenced their decisions to instigate the action and continue with it in the face of the evidence that it was unsafe, unsound and unjust to do so.

Mr Mihaka clearly needs a lawyer to explain to the Court and Tribunal what "reasonable doubt" is, this is clearly a very serious miscarriage of justice and Mr Mihaka needs a lawyer to assist him properly, and URGENTLY.  Clearly if Mr Mihaka had been in possession of the information that has come to light recently he would have called witnesses, and cross examined witnesses, far more effectively - despite the fact that he should have had a lawyer or at least an amicus, Mr Mihaka was clearly disadvantaged by the fact that despite being a self represented defendant conducting his own defence in his native language, the very sensible suggestion of Judge Hastings that an amicus be appointed was completely ignored by Judge Kelly, and this clearly caused significant disadvantage and prejudice to Mr Mihaka - if he had been in possession of the information he was entitled to under the Criminal Disclosure Act he would have been able to defend himself effectively - this is NOT justice and Maori did NOT sign up to this form of oppressive and unjust "governance"!  Mr Bourke has a fiduciary duty to Mr Mihaka, and to the Court and the HRRT, and we insist that he fulfill this duty under the supervision of Mr Gwilliam.

There is also the matter of Police abandoning Mr Mihaka in the middle of the National Park recently, overnight on a narrow and dangerous road verge in freezing cold conditions, without a working phone or any ability to heat his car.  This is further evidence of the outrageous harassment of Mr Mihaka by NZ Police - and their CONSCIOUS bias against Maori, and unreasonable, prejudiced and biased treatment of him by certain Police officers.  Despite Mr Mihaka complying with compliance conditions Police continue to enforce $800 worth of fines after forcing him to spend the night in freezing conditions - this is outrageous and we request assistance to deal with this latest injustice.  Attached are two recent letters from Mr Mihaka's doctors regarding these matters, Mr Mihaka currently has no means of transport and it appears that WINZ have unjustly refused his application for assistance with this, his doctor has written two letters about this unacceptable situation, and we request assistance URGENTLY regarding these matters. 

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding these matters as Mr Mihaka's evidence is now overdue and Police are still not providing the information he is entitled to - attached also is page 4 of 5 of the complainant's statement - Mr Mihaka is entitled to an unredacted copy of this under the Criminal Disclosures Act, Police know this, and it is ridiculous that Mr Mihaka is forced to write endless letters about these matters just to get what he should have been given before he was tried in the Court!  Mr Dickie's statement is attached, as are two relevant pages of the transcript of evidence, and it can be clearly seen that while Police and Housing Corp are alleging Mr Mihaka is a "serious cannabis smoker" there is a very serious, significant and absolutely indisputably relevant discrepancy between what Mr Dickie told Police happened and what Mr Dickie then said in Court, and it is clearly Mr Dickie who is confused!  Despite Mr Mihaka's ALLEGED actions being described as "inexplicable" by France J - reinforcing the complete lack of any elements such as mens rea or even actus reus - what is inexplicable is why Mr Dickie felt the need to apply physical force to Mr Mihaka when Mr Mihaka was asleep - TWICE if we are to believe both the statement to Police and the evidence given in Court.  The use of the word "inexplicable" by France J is extremely apt - Mr Dickie's allegations do not stand up to scrutiny and his memory is clearly confused and selectively vacant.  Mr Mihaka attempted to explain to Judge Kelly exactly what he and Mr Dickie were talking about in order to enlighten the Court to the background of the allegation and was repeatedly shut down - the subject of the conversation was vitally relevant and it is unacceptable that Mr Bourke also shut Mr Mihaka down and refused to raise that issue and others as instructed, we insist that he do so without further delay and explain why Mr Mihaka is forced to pay his bill as well as Mr Crowley's when we were under the clear apprehension that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, and it is clear that the matter of the conflicting evidence given by Mr Dickie and the elements of credibility and reasonable doubt were not addressed.  

Mr Mihaka's letter to the Supreme Court clearly states his views regarding his legal representation and they do not preclude or prevent Mr Bourke recommencing his action in the HRRT or any of the other requested courses of action.  As Mr Mihaka states it is Mr Crowley who he holds mostly responsible for the oversight of the lack of provision of the Disclosure etc.  There is evidence that the Disclosure was given to the Duty Solicitor and that it was never given to Mr Mihaka or Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley - and now Police are withholding and redacting the last four lines of it when they finally DO provide it - after considerable delay.  It is also clear that the response from the NZ Police to Mr Bourke's letter (attached) regarding the defamatory allegations of HNZC regarding information allegedly received from NZ Police regarding Mr Mihaka is completely unacceptable, and this also needs to be followed up by Mr Bourke.  HNZC need to correct the information recorded by Karaka Tuhakaraina in the email to Kathy Furfie, which clearly formed part of the basis for decision making regarding the eviction - Mr Mihaka has NEVER EVER admitted assaulting Mr Dickie - MR DICKIE HAS ADMITTED TWICE APPLYING UNWANTED PHYSICAL FORCE TO MR MIHAKA - WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.

A serious miscarriage of justice has occurred and is being compounded on a daily basis, attached are two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding the situation currently impacting on him due to unjust decisions of a Crown governance system which has been imposed unlawfully on tangata whenua, and continues to discriminate, oppress, incarcerate and kill a growing number of Maori every year, every day, in Crown Courts and Tribunals throughout the country, Mr Mihaka's situation requires addressing urgently and I believe that you have a duty to him - and also to the Court and the HRRT, to assist him with these issues.  He was left overnight in the freezing cold on the side of the road over a very minor administrative matter that another officer had given him compliance for due to the trivial nature of the "infringement" and now he is expected to pay $800 - that is NOT justice that is DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE and BIAS against Mr Mihaka and there is strong evidence to suggest that these actions are politically motivated.  Personally I feel discriminated against by Mr Bourke referring to me as "some crazy person" - this is completely unacceptable.  I'm not crazy, Mr Mihaka is not "confused", a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, there is evidence which has not been considered by the Courts, because it has not been available to Mihaka, who was lawfully entitled to the information, and to a fair trial.

Nga mihi,
Katherine Raue
for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

Attached to this email were seven documents:  Two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor, one to Work and Income supporting Mr Mihaka's request for assistance with some minor repairs to his car which he requires to get to his medical appointments, etc, and the other to whom it may concern regarding the actions of Police in leaving Mr Mihaka on the side of the road all night at National Park for a trivial "infringement".  Also attached were Mr Dickie's statement to Police, the Summary of Facts, two pages of the Court transcript regarding Mr Dickie's conflicting evidence, the correspondence between lawyer Nathan Bourke and Police regarding the defamatory allegations contained in the claim by HNZC regarding information received from Police regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, and one page of the Minute from the Chairman of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the question of which lawyer is going to represent Mr Mihaka.

It seems that none of them are.  It seems that there's one law for some and another law for others, particularly those more privileged.

Despite Nathan Bourke's claim to be acting pro bono the following legal aid bills tell a different story - the story of how the colonial governance system is exploiting nga uri o te tangata whenua (the descendants of the original inhabitants of Aotearoa), who entered treaties in good faith with the tauiwi (other people).

 

 

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka demonstrating the correct way to bow to the Crown

A haka boogie exponent tries unsuccessfully to emulate Mr Mihaka's historic statement

Links:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9LWJzUUhlLWF3bGlkbm5FdDg2RXpNRGdRWG5B/view?usp=sharing

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9UHg0NUdMbHBTQWU0LVdJM3pzZUNZTkxTajlr/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9NUlQR3h6aGpCSW8/view?usp=sharing

http://teringamangu.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/caught-out-in-cold.html

The price of Crown colonial 'justice' - legal aid - aiding lawyers or their clients?

Following the receipt of this Minute from the Human Rights Review Tribunal in April Mr Mihaka and his Maori Agent have repeatedly attempted to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue with lawyers John Gwilliam and Nathan Bourke, to no avail.

Of particular interest, and the cause of considerable offence to Mr Mihaka, is the statement "There is a real possibility Mr Mihaka is confused."

It is clear that Mr Mihaka is not confused; Mr Dickie is confused.  NZ Police and the Courts seem to be also confused.

Two week ago we emailed lawyers Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke thus:

Tena korua,
As discussed with you both previously, Dun urgently needs assistance with the proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and apparently hasn't received any response from Nathan Bourke.  His evidence is required to be filed in HRRT and is overdue.  Dun feels that in addition to HNZC discriminating against him, NZ Police have also discriminated against him, and also the Courts, and there is strong evidence to support this.  Attached is page 2 of the Minute of the HRRT dated 8 April regarding the question of whether Mr Gwilliam or Mr Bourke is going to represent Mr Mihaka. 

Many people believe that the issue of the major discrepancies in Warren Dickie's evidence - which were apparently not even mentioned at either appeal - warrant further scrutiny because it is clear that a miscarriage of justice has occurred and Dun did not receive a fair trial, as happens to other Maori every day in Courts throughout the country.

Neither Nathan Bourke's file or Brett Crowley's contained the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 June 2014, and neither Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley apparently noticed that the Summary of Facts was in direct contradiction to the evidence that Mr Dickie gave in Court.  These serious discrepancies were not addressed at either appeal, not even sighted by Mr Mihaka or his lawyers until very recently, and were vitally relevant to the matter of Mr Dickie's credibility. 

Now that we have received a copy of Mr Dickie's original statement to Police it is clear that his evidence is inconsistent to the point of being totally contradictory and simply not credible, and that there is relevant and important evidence which has not been addressed by any of the Courts at which the matter has been filed.  It seems that the reason these discrepancies were not brought to the attention of the High Court or the Court of Appeal is that none of the lawyers involved asked Mr Mihaka if he'd ever received Disclosure and if so where it was - the statement the complainant gave to Police and the Summary of Facts are in total contradiction to the evidence given by the complainant on oath and it is unbelievable that this was never brought to the attention of the Court - it is vitally relevant to the credibility of the complainant and it is insulting and abusive that Mr Mihaka continues to be labelled "confused" when it is perfectly clear and absolutely indisputable that the complainant, HCNZ, NZ Police and the Courts are confused!

Mr Dickie's statement to Police is at this link.  It states that the alleged assault occurred around nine or nine thirty at night, as he was getting ready to go to bed, and that Mr Dickie applied unwanted physical force to Mr Mihaka as Mr Mihaka was asleep.  Page 3 of this statement in particular warrants further scrutiny - several aspects of it are in direct contradiction to Mr Dickie's evidence on oath, Mr Dickie would more than likely have been unable to see whether or not one or both of Mr Mihaka's hands were on his throat due to human anatomical vision capabilities for one thing,

The NZ Police Summary of Facts (sic) likewise claims that the alleged incident occurred at around nine to nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was asleep:

- Furthermore, the allegation refers to Mr Mihaka as "Nathan Mihaka" a name he has always rejected and stated that he finds offensive in the extreme, and he believes that Police continue to refer to him by this name deliberately in order to cause ongoing offence - and there is clear and indisputable evidence of this.

- And note how the Police display bias - they ignore the fact that Mr Dickie "tapped him on the shoulder" while Mr Mihaka was asleep - stated in the statement to Police by Mr Dickie but omitted from the Summary of "Facts" (sic).

Now here is the evidence Mr Dickie gave on oath regarding the time this alleged incident occurred - a completely and utterly different version of events - events he now alleges happened "in the morning, when I got up around 7:30 or thereabouts . . . when I . . . turned the jug on to make a cup of coffee":

There is also clear evidence of exaggeration and embellishment on Mr Dickie's part - first Mr Dickie claims that Mr Mihaka applied force to him for "thirty seconds to one minute" and then doubles this for effect to "one to two minutes".  When asked what happened immediately afterwards Mr Dickie states he can't remember.  This memory failing is a repeated refrain in the evidence given in Court by Mr Dickie - it is clear that Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka, and the fact that Mr Dickie claims to have twice applied force to Mr Mihaka once allegedly at 7 - 7:30 in the morning and again at 9 - 9:30 at night, and is clearly so confused about things that he doesn't know when the incident took place let alone if it took place, clearly establishes REASONABLE DOUBT!

Police should have realised that Mr Dickie was not a reliable witness but they simply arrested Mr Mihaka the minute he opened his door when they knocked, demonstrating the usual politically and racially motivated bias.  The email to the lawyers continues thus:

Mr Mihaka has received disrespectful messages from Mr Bourke in the past, some of these messages indicate a clear refusal to accept reasonable instructions from Mr Mihaka, Mr Mihaka was under the impression that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, which is also what Mr Bourke told me, which is in contradiction to the bill Mr Mihaka has received for Mr Bourke's services; notwithstanding that, Mr Mihaka wishes Mr Bourke to finish the proceedings he started in the HRRT and has instructed Mr Bourke to do that.

We also reject the opinion that there is nothing Mr Mihaka can now do to challenge the unjust decision to convict him of assaulting Mr Dickie and formally instruct you to apply for a recall of the decision of France J on the grounds that the Courts failed to address the major discrepancies and factual errors referred to in the statement Mr Dickie made to Police on 2 July, the prosecution Summary of Facts, and the evidence given on oath by the complainant.  To spell it out:  Mr Dickie's statement to Police (which Judges wrongly stated was made the day after the alleged assault) and the Summary of Facts (sic) both allege that the 'incident' occurred at around nine or nine thirty at night as Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed and Mr Mihaka was already asleep.

The complainant's evidence in Court was that the assault happened at around seven thirty in the morning after Mr Dickie got up and made coffee and Mr Mihaka was still asleep - NOT at night when Mr Dickie was getting ready to go to bed - the exact opposite of what he told Police in fact. 

Clearly Mr Dickie is confused, not Mr Mihaka!  The only "fact" regarding an assault which is agreed is that Mr Dickie applied force deliberately to Mr Mihaka while Mr Mihaka was asleep.
Then there is the issue of the utterly non factual "information sharing" between NZ Police and Housing New Zealand Corporation and the defamatory allegations that Mr Mihaka "uses methamphetamine" and is a "serious cannabis smoker" and lives in a suspected "P house"!  Not to mention the equally untrue allegation made by HNZC ( - when considering whether to evict Mr Mihaka) that Mr Mihaka actually ADMITTED assaulting Mr Dickie - Mr Mihaka has always strenuously DENIED the allegation!

It seems that the relationship between Mr Bourke and Mr Mihaka broke down due to communication issues and misunderstandings.  Mr Mihaka and I have done all we can to facilitate the resolution of these matters and facilitate meaningful and constructive communication.  We note that Meredith Connell and Mr Gwiliam have been in communication and would appreciate it if Mr Gwilliam would ask Mr Bourke why he has failed to even respond to our messages and schedule an appointment as soon as possible to meet with Mr Mihaka and I as soon as possible, as Mr Bourke has failed to even respond to Mr Mihaka's messages and instructions, and we wish to discuss the issue of his bill, and the fact that he told Mr Mihaka and I that he was acting pro bono. 

Mr Mihaka says that he gave Mr Bourke a copy of the book Whakapohane for the specific and explicit purpose of Mr Bourke understanding the legal basis for Mr Mihaka's clear and explicit instructions to Mr Bourke, and the relevance of Mr Mihaka's history of constructive and meaningful peaceful protest and political activism, the relevance of the so called "flag debate" and the fact that over $26,000,000 was apparently spent ignoring the fact that despite the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, John Key completely ignored the fact that OUR flag, Te Kara o Te Whakaputanga, Te Hakituatahi, has never been decommissioned, we have TWO official languages, and TWO official flags, and Maori are being oppressed and treated with bias and prejudice - directly related to the credibility of Mr Dickie and the credibility of Mr Mihaka and the allegations of drug use and criminality.  Mr Mihaka also explained to Mr Bourke the relevance of the book to the dialogue between him and Mr Dickie leading up to the alleged incident.  Mr Mihaka feels that if Mr Bourke is not going to accept his instruction or even bother communication with us any further regarding these matters, especially when the evidence is so indisputable and the course of action is clearly to apply for a recall of France J's judgment on the grounds that the discrepancies were never addressed and they are directly relevant to the issue of credibility and they were not addressed because the duty solicitor never passed on the Disclosure to anyone, Mr Mihaka would like the book returned as soon as possible please.  If none of the lawyers involved are going to apply for the recall of the judgment I will, and I need the book to do that. 

Mr Bourke's messages to Mr Mihaka are unquestionably disrespectful and inappropriate (he refers to me as a crazy person in one of them), rather than make a formal complaint about this Mr Mihaka would prefer to meet face to face with me, Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to discuss the matter of the HRRT proceedings and the recall of France J's decision, which is more than reasonable in my humble opinion.

Mr Mihaka reiterates his instruction to Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke to assist him with the proceedings in the HRRT - the matter is urgent, the date Mr Mihaka's evidence was due to be in has passed and HNZC and NZ Police continue to obfuscate and delay providing vital information such as which Police officer told HNZC the untrue allegations about Mr Mihaka, and what exactly "iwi liaison officer" Michael Tahere told HNZC, who told HNZC that Mr Mihaka admitted the allegations, HNZC continue to aggressively assert - via their tax payer funded lawyers, Meredith Connell, who Mr Gwilliam has been in communication regarding these matters - that HNZC don't need a reason to evict Mr Mihaka while the HRRT ironically accuses Mr Mihaka and I of being "disingenuous" and displaying "a degree of artificiality" in our communications - is is clear that the reason for the eviction was the ALLEGED assault and the false allegations of Police and Mr Dickie! 

There is a significant degree of artificiality in the evidence against Mr Mihaka and the manner in which he has been treated by NZ Police and the colonial Police/Crown Court legal system which Maori have been unlawfully subjected to since the days of the armed constabulary storming Parihaka, and the numerous ways the Crown have discriminated against Maori and denigrated their credibility and mana since their arrival on these shores - all Mr Mihaka asks is a FAIR hearing and the right to have these serious discrepancies in the case for the prosecution, this NEW EVIDENCE, addressed by the Court, because the alleged assault is CLEARLY the reason for the eviction despite the disingenuous and artificial arguments to the contrary from Meredith Connell and HNZC - who refuse to name the Police officer who told them Mr Mihaka uses methamphetamine and lives in a P house, which no doubt influenced their decisions to instigate the action and continue with it in the face of the evidence that it was unsafe, unsound and unjust to do so.

Mr Mihaka clearly needs a lawyer to explain to the Court and Tribunal what "reasonable doubt" is, this is clearly a very serious miscarriage of justice and Mr Mihaka needs a lawyer to assist him properly, and URGENTLY.  Clearly if Mr Mihaka had been in possession of the information that has come to light recently he would have called witnesses, and cross examined witnesses, far more effectively - despite the fact that he should have had a lawyer or at least an amicus, Mr Mihaka was clearly disadvantaged by the fact that despite being a self represented defendant conducting his own defence in his native language, the very sensible suggestion of Judge Hastings that an amicus be appointed was completely ignored by Judge Kelly, and this clearly caused significant disadvantage and prejudice to Mr Mihaka - if he had been in possession of the information he was entitled to under the Criminal Disclosure Act he would have been able to defend himself effectively - this is NOT justice and Maori did NOT sign up to this form of oppressive and unjust "governance"!  Mr Bourke has a fiduciary duty to Mr Mihaka, and to the Court and the HRRT, and we insist that he fulfill this duty under the supervision of Mr Gwilliam.

There is also the matter of Police abandoning Mr Mihaka in the middle of the National Park recently, overnight on a narrow and dangerous road verge in freezing cold conditions, without a working phone or any ability to heat his car.  This is further evidence of the outrageous harassment of Mr Mihaka by NZ Police - and their CONSCIOUS bias against Maori, and unreasonable, prejudiced and biased treatment of him by certain Police officers.  Despite Mr Mihaka complying with compliance conditions Police continue to enforce $800 worth of fines after forcing him to spend the night in freezing conditions - this is outrageous and we request assistance to deal with this latest injustice.  Attached are two recent letters from Mr Mihaka's doctors regarding these matters, Mr Mihaka currently has no means of transport and it appears that WINZ have unjustly refused his application for assistance with this, his doctor has written two letters about this unacceptable situation, and we request assistance URGENTLY regarding these matters. 

We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible regarding these matters as Mr Mihaka's evidence is now overdue and Police are still not providing the information he is entitled to - attached also is page 4 of 5 of the complainant's statement - Mr Mihaka is entitled to an unredacted copy of this under the Criminal Disclosures Act, Police know this, and it is ridiculous that Mr Mihaka is forced to write endless letters about these matters just to get what he should have been given before he was tried in the Court!  Mr Dickie's statement is attached, as are two relevant pages of the transcript of evidence, and it can be clearly seen that while Police and Housing Corp are alleging Mr Mihaka is a "serious cannabis smoker" there is a very serious, significant and absolutely indisputably relevant discrepancy between what Mr Dickie told Police happened and what Mr Dickie then said in Court, and it is clearly Mr Dickie who is confused!  Despite Mr Mihaka's ALLEGED actions being described as "inexplicable" by France J - reinforcing the complete lack of any elements such as mens rea or even actus reus - what is inexplicable is why Mr Dickie felt the need to apply physical force to Mr Mihaka when Mr Mihaka was asleep - TWICE if we are to believe both the statement to Police and the evidence given in Court.  The use of the word "inexplicable" by France J is extremely apt - Mr Dickie's allegations do not stand up to scrutiny and his memory is clearly confused and selectively vacant.  Mr Mihaka attempted to explain to Judge Kelly exactly what he and Mr Dickie were talking about in order to enlighten the Court to the background of the allegation and was repeatedly shut down - the subject of the conversation was vitally relevant and it is unacceptable that Mr Bourke also shut Mr Mihaka down and refused to raise that issue and others as instructed, we insist that he do so without further delay and explain why Mr Mihaka is forced to pay his bill as well as Mr Crowley's when we were under the clear apprehension that Mr Bourke was acting on a pro bono basis, and it is clear that the matter of the conflicting evidence given by Mr Dickie and the elements of credibility and reasonable doubt were not addressed.  

Mr Mihaka's letter to the Supreme Court clearly states his views regarding his legal representation and they do not preclude or prevent Mr Bourke recommencing his action in the HRRT or any of the other requested courses of action.  As Mr Mihaka states it is Mr Crowley who he holds mostly responsible for the oversight of the lack of provision of the Disclosure etc.  There is evidence that the Disclosure was given to the Duty Solicitor and that it was never given to Mr Mihaka or Mr Bourke or Mr Crowley - and now Police are withholding and redacting the last four lines of it when they finally DO provide it - after considerable delay.  It is also clear that the response from the NZ Police to Mr Bourke's letter (attached) regarding the defamatory allegations of HNZC regarding information allegedly received from NZ Police regarding Mr Mihaka is completely unacceptable, and this also needs to be followed up by Mr Bourke.  HNZC need to correct the information recorded by Karaka Tuhakaraina in the email to Kathy Furfie, which clearly formed part of the basis for decision making regarding the eviction - Mr Mihaka has NEVER EVER admitted assaulting Mr Dickie - MR DICKIE HAS ADMITTED TWICE APPLYING UNWANTED PHYSICAL FORCE TO MR MIHAKA - WHILE HE WAS ASLEEP.

A serious miscarriage of justice has occurred and is being compounded on a daily basis, attached are two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding the situation currently impacting on him due to unjust decisions of a Crown governance system which has been imposed unlawfully on tangata whenua, and continues to discriminate, oppress, incarcerate and kill a growing number of Maori every year, every day, in Crown Courts and Tribunals throughout the country, Mr Mihaka's situation requires addressing urgently and I believe that you have a duty to him - and also to the Court and the HRRT, to assist him with these issues.  He was left overnight in the freezing cold on the side of the road over a very minor administrative matter that another officer had given him compliance for due to the trivial nature of the "infringement" and now he is expected to pay $800 - that is NOT justice that is DISCRIMINATION, PREJUDICE and BIAS against Mr Mihaka and there is strong evidence to suggest that these actions are politically motivated.  Personally I feel discriminated against by Mr Bourke referring to me as "some crazy person" - this is completely unacceptable.  I'm not crazy, Mr Mihaka is not "confused", a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred, there is evidence which has not been considered by the Courts, because it has not been available to Mihaka, who was lawfully entitled to the information, and to a fair trial.

Nga mihi,
Katherine Raue
for Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka

Attached to this email were seven documents:  Two letters from Mr Mihaka's doctor, one to Work and Income supporting Mr Mihaka's request for assistance with some minor repairs to his car which he requires to get to his medical appointments, etc, and the other to whom it may concern regarding the actions of Police in leaving Mr Mihaka on the side of the road all night at National Park for a trivial "infringement".  Also attached were Mr Dickie's statement to Police, the Summary of Facts, two pages of the Court transcript regarding Mr Dickie's conflicting evidence, the correspondence between lawyer Nathan Bourke and Police regarding the defamatory allegations contained in the claim by HNZC regarding information received from Police regarding Mr Mihaka's alleged drug use, and one page of the Minute from the Chairman of the Human Rights Review Tribunal regarding the question of which lawyer is going to represent Mr Mihaka.

It seems that none of them are.  It seems that there's one law for some and another law for others, particularly those more privileged.

Te Ringa Mangu Mihaka demonstrating the correct way to bow to the Crown

A haka boogie exponent tries unsuccessfully to emulate Mr Mihaka's historic statement

While the Crown colonial clowns have a giggle and a snigger, we are not amused at how their so called 'justice system' works - here are the bills for the so called "work" done by Mr Bourke and Mr Crowley to date - while both of them were too lazy or negligent to point out that it is not enough to just translate the hearing - the advice of Judge Bill Hastings should have been heeded and an amicus provided, it would have been a lot cheaper in the long run. 

Then to add insult to injury, Mr Crowley sends this letter -

As we've repeatedly pointed out to Mr Gwilliam and Mr Bourke and Mr Crowley, the Court, etc, Mr Mihaka could not raise matters which he was unaware of.  He was unaware of the Disclosure because Police didn't give it to him, nobody gave it to him, and it seems that nobody translated the Summary of Facts to Mr Mihaka - if they had done so, and translated the statement Mr Dickie made to Police, also contained in the Disclosure which Mr Mihaka never received, Mr Mihaka would have been able to challenge Mr Dickie's credibility and cross examine him as to the serious discrepancies and contradictions and exaggerations and embellishments in his statements to Police and his evidence.

Clearly Mr Mihaka is entitled to a fair hearing of his appeal on the basis of new evidence which was not considered by the Court previously.  The discrepancies in the complainant's evidence must be addressed - as does the bias and prejudice of NZ Police - given the letter from Mr Mihaka's doctor regarding the actions of Police in leaving Mr Mihaka stranded overnight in the middle of National Park in the middle of winter with no phone and no way of heating his car, etc, particularly compared to the lack of any medical evidence to support Mr Dickie's dodgy claims.

Links:

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9LWJzUUhlLWF3bGlkbm5FdDg2RXpNRGdRWG5B/view?usp=sharing

 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9UHg0NUdMbHBTQWU0LVdJM3pzZUNZTkxTajlr/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Evc9gAoXg9NUlQR3h6aGpCSW8/view?usp=sharing

http://teringamangu.blogspot.co.nz/2016/06/caught-out-in-cold.html

Caught out in the cold

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

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

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

 Shortly followed by another message:

"Think I can do with some help PRONTO!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

"This gentleman is seventy four years old and had a number of medical problems.
I am unclear of the recent circumstances surrounding the night he spent on a road in his car near National Park village, but regard it as inappropriate that any person of seventy four years old should, of necessity, sleep in a car on that stretch of road at that time of year."

Te Whakaputanga

Hot on the heels of the payment of millions of dollars to a Saudi Arabian 'businessman' (extortionist more like it) John Key has just spent twenty six million dollars - of taxpayers money - trying to pretend New Zealand only has one flag. 

The 1835 flag - the tohu of our whakaputanga (the sign or emblem of Maori sovereignty) - has never been decommissioned.

Time we started honouring our first flag - Hone Heke chopped down the flagpole at Waitangi because the English refused to fly our flag on the very pole that Hone Heke had gifted them with the intention that BOTH flags should fly from it, and ever since the government has ignored and eroded the mana of Te Kara, the colours, the flag chosen by the United Tribes of Aotearoa in 1835 and recognised by the world.  Our flag was replaced by stealth and bullying.