Lake Horowhenua Activist Philip Dean Taueki Badly Assaulted In Prison
By Alastair Thompson
Lake Horowhenua activist Philip Dean Taueki has been viciously assaulted in prison.
Scoop this morning received the following affidavit filed in support of a bail variation and note from his partner, investigative journalist Anne Hunt.
Philip Taueki has been battling against the Horowhenua District Council over the management of Lake Horowhenua, which is toxic and subjected to un-consented discharges of sewage and storm water.
Lake Horowhenua is also the resting place of the bodies of his tribe the Muaupoko who were massacred in the 19th Century by infamous chief Te Rauparaha.
For additional background on this case see this 2012 report from Scoop Editor Alastair Thompson. Activist On Run After Lake Horowhena Toilet Photo Incident.
Note from Anne Hunt concerning Phillip Taueki's latest court appearance:
The face of this year's Canon awards was yesterday remanded in custody after appearing before a Judge whose all three convictions had been successfully appealed.
Those of us in the courtroom saw a man who has been badly assaulted, is suffering from dizzy spells and blurred vision, has a badly swollen leg and who has lost eight teeth and is losing weight badly.
Advertisement - scroll to continue readingWe believe he is suffering from mild concussion from this attack and this will have been compounded by the concussion he suffered in August 2008 when the sailors attacked him, on 20 July 2013 when the rowers attacked him, and on 17 October when Michael Fryer went out to his sister's place and attacked them both. And of course he was injured when Sandra Williams went for him with a wooden scooter only a few weeks ago. That complaint has yet to be investigated.
Even though he prefers to remain a self-litigant, he had no access to a pen, until a guard took pity on him and gave him his.
After he had recorded notes on the three small sheets of paper he was allocated and scribbled on the back of every notice he could get his hands on, he bartered that pen for some noodles.
He did not appear in court until 5pm, and was denied even the dignity of toilet paper.
- Anne Hunt 9 May 2014
AFFIDAVIT FOLLOWS
IN THE
DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
LEVIN
REGISTRY
CRI-2014-031-000447
Between
: The New Zealand
Police
And:
Philip Dean Taueki
(defendant)
Urgent
application for variation of bail conditions due to injury
in custody
7 May 2014
Philip
Dean Taueki
c/ 17 Nash Parade
Foxton
Beach
MAY IT PLEASE THE
COURT
1. I, Philip Deane
Taueki as an unrepresented party am hereby seeking an urgent
variation of my bail conditions due to the injuries I
sustained as the result of an assault while on remand in
custody at Manawatu Prison. It was only due to the
intervention of prison guards that I avoided being seriously
maimed or even crippled.
2. As a result of this assault
by an inmate on Wednesday 30 April, I have lost eight teeth,
my vision is only just clearing after being blurred for a
number of days, I have facial lacerations and my leg remains
swollen and purple after the offender whacked my calf. It is
double the size of my other leg. I suffer from
osteoarthritis in my knees, and although I am now in
constant pain, I have not been prescribed
painkillers.
3. I am on remand, and have not been
convicted of a single offence to warrant imprisonment.
4. Even when this latest barrage of charges has been
thrown out, no Judge will ever be capable of restoring the
teeth I have lost, rectify impaired vision or compensate for
reduced mobility.
5. “Legally, Corrections has a duty
of care to all prisoners, which they take very seriously”,
a spokesperson for Corrections Minister Anne Tolley assured
readers of this morning’s Dominion Post. I have no reason
to feel safe while in custody.
6. Corrections and to a
lesser extent, this Court and the NZ Police Force has failed
to provide me the level of protection I am entitled to
receive while on remand in custody.
7. Meanwhile the NZ
Police Force has failed to investigate my own complaint of
assault against the complainant and her husband, who came
onto the property where I was working.
8. As the legal
owner of this Kemp Street property, I am entitled to rely on
a defence of both self-defence and peaceable possession; the
right to use reasonable force to remove
them.
Background
9. On 15 April the defendant
was remanded in custody on a total of ten charges, after
being arrested in the Levin District Court upon appearance
for a case review of two remaining charges.
10. It was
not until I appeared in court during the afternoon session
that I discovered I was facing ten new
charges.
11. Although a self-represented litigant, my
pre-trial application was removed from me while I was
detained in police custody.
12. I will be entering a plea
of ‘not guilty’.
13. This Court is already well aware
of the poor batting record of the Horowhenua Police Force.
Consideration of just cause for continued detention should
evaluate the strength of the evidence and the probability of
conviction or otherwise.
14. In these unique
circumstances, this Court should also consider the
motivation behind these latest charges that are the result
of investigations by Constable Lionel Currie and Sergeant
Marty Bull. The summary of facts that I have finally viewed,
are as usual a distorted representation of the situation to
cast me in the worst possible light in order to oppose bail,
so that they can disrupt my lifestyle and leave me seriously
penalised while awaiting the opportunity to prove my
innocence.
15. Bail conditions are usually so stringent
that I can be arrested and led away in handcuffs even while
attending the Foxton RSA during a medal ceremony for
veterans on Armistice Day.
16. I can be arrested if I
yell at the rowers who deliberately cross the Domain
boundary onto land that is waahi tapu to launch their
boats, or defecate in the bushes due to a lack of
toilets.
17. When the NZ Police continue to make claims
that Lake Horowhenua is a community asset and that members
of the public are entitled to use the lake for recreational
purposes, they still don’t grasp the point that this lake
is privately-owned and nobody can access the lake without
crossing Maori Freehold Land that we have neither sold nor
leased to the Crown. Access is subject to compliance with
the by-laws.
18. When I was arrested by the Police on
charges of obstruction and resistance after I had parked my
truck lawfully on my own land in a futile attempt to prevent
Horizons and NIWA launching unwashed motorised boats on the
lake, Police Area Commander Pat Handcock referred this
matter to the IPCA. N Both charges were dropped, but not
until after I had wasted more time in custody and spent a
morning in court waiting for my name to be called to enter a
plea on these charges.
19. The NZ Police have failed to
secure a prosecution on 19 charges since an incident on 5
October 2011. No apology!
20. This number of 19 charges
was the threshold for Vince Seimer to be declared a
vexatious litigant in the High Court last
week.
21. Relying purely on internal advice, the NZ
Police have decided that if I enter my own building, I am
there unlawfully.
22. When I refer to the Court of Appeal
judgement or Crown Law’s submission, the usual response
from the Police when they arrest me is that ‘it is over
their heads’.
23. I was not arrested on the night of
the 28th March, as I was able to phone Anne Hunt to let her
know what was happening while Police Officers Nathan Dally
and Daly Johns were outside consulting Marty Bull on what to
do. Only two days earlier, I had warned Inspector Waata
Shepherd from Police National Headquarters that I am fed up
with spending time in police custody whenever the police
want to stop me doing something that upsets their mates in
the rowing club.
24. I would have imagined that police
officers have a duty to familiarise themselves with the law
and the findings of superior courts. They cite the Maori
Land Court as their authority, despite an appeal to the
Maori Appellate Court.
25. So we have this bizarre
situation whereby the police have agreed that they will
arrest me if I enter a building I own to store lake
restoration equipment that the owners have purchased from
our own resources, but the police will provide protection
for the rowers to break into a building they neither own nor
lease to toss this gear outside. The police will then
arrange for a 24-hour scene guard to summon assistance to
arrest any owner who dares enter our own building!
26. It
is no wonder that the NZ Police Force have difficulties
substantiating their charges because they don’t know the
law.
27. Because the police thought they could arrest me
for being unlawfully in my own building, the police still
fail to accept that owners have the right to free and
unrestricted use of our own property; a right which Cooke J
said may well be unique.
28. When it comes to trespass,
their failure rate is 100%. One was tossed out while I was
still cross-examining the first witness. For the second, we
didn’t even bother to remain in the courtroom after the
Judge granted us leave to leave.
29. Under the Crimes
Act, an unlawful act means a breach of any act, regulation,
rule or by-law. The only person prepared to enforce the
by-laws is me, yet I’m the one who gets
arrested.
30. The only conviction since 1 October 2011
related to an incident on 9 October 2011 when a District
Court Judge was adamant that it didn’t matter whether
Constable Tate was a mass murderer or broke every law in the
land, it was irrelevant to the charges I faced. Upon appeal,
he was over-ruled in the High Court by Justice Kos who
stated that:
The event had not been organised lawfully.
He was, as his counsel Mr Price put it, right about that.
There was no permit for the assembly or event. And there was
no permit for the motorised craft on the lake. Each permit
should have been obtained.
To make matters worse, the
organiser of the event was a
constable.
31. Unfortunately, due to the constant
intervention of the District Court Judge. I was unable to
point out that the police officer who had organised this
unlawful event had also been an investigating officer who
gave evidence in uniform.
32. Only two days later,
Justice Mackenzie quashed two convictions in relation to an
incident when an off-duty police officer had been rowing on
the lake with the complainant. This police officer was the
complainant and officer in charge for a third charge and
also the officer in charge and sole witness for a fourth
charge; both of which had already been dismissed by a
District Court Judge.
12. The matters to which I have
referred relate primarily to the 21 August incident. An
on-duty officer, Constable Currie was called to the incident
on 22 August. The charges in relation to the 21 August
incident were dismissed. I consider that the dismissal of
these charges does not remove the risk of a miscarriage of
justice arsing from the matters to which I have referred.
The two incidents were very closely linked and they were
dealt with at one hearing. The issue as to the availability
of Mr Tate for cross-examination affects the 22 August
charges. I consider that there is a substantial risk that
the process of justice has miscarried in respect of the
entire prosecution. I conclude that the convictions on the
22 August charges cannot be allowed to stand.
33. Six
months later, Hon Justice Kos quashed yet another
conviction in which the prosecution case was based on
testimony from two police officers and one civilian
witness.
44. ...Constable Currie testified that Mr Taueki
‘became aggressive with one particular person who was
walking up the ramp. He was gesturing at him, ‘Come on
then’, and gesturing at him, with his hands to come
towards him”. The person, the constable said, was Mr
Tukapua. In that case it must have been the incident in the
seventh minute, not the 14th. There is no evidence Mr
Tukapua was walking up the ramp again just before Mr Taueki
was arrested. Yet that was when Sergeant Bull said the
gesture came. The video recording does not show such a
gesture, whether at the seventh or the 14th minute.
46.
With great respect to the trial Judge, I do not consider
that there was a sufficient factual foundation for at least
the second limb of 3, a finding that Mr Taueki’s behaviour
was likely in the circumstances to cause violence against
persons or property to start.
47. A conviction on the
evidence taken as a whole could not safely be
entered.
The appellant has shown that the Court should
not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was
guilty of the offence charged.
34. It should be noted
that Constable Currie is the investigating officer for the
most serious charges I face, male assault female. I
understand that my own complaint relating to this particular
incident that I had laid with Constable Charles Rudd had
also been passed on to Constable Currie to
investigate.
35. It is my understanding that Sergeant
Bull is the officer in charge for all remaining charges that
I face.
36. Therefore I have no reason to have any
confidence whatsoever in the impartiality of police
investigations conducted prior to my arrest in this very
courtroom on 15 April.
Conflict of
Interests
37. On 15 April 2014, I was representing
myself as a lay litigant for a case review relating to some
serious issues, including the refusal by the NZ Police to
obtain Crown Law advice for a review of the two remaining
charges following the release of my Supreme Court decision
on 17 December 2013. Due to the site of this particular
incident, this Supreme Court judgement is directly relevant
to these charges.
38. Arriving on time for my court
appearance, I was arrested by two police officers and held
in custody until my appearance before Judge Lynch at 2.15pm.
My pre-trial application was removed from me, even though
these complex matters were scheduled to be addressed in
court that day.
39. The only duty solicitor for that day
was Mr Gimblett.
40. In addition to serving as duty
solicitor that day, Mr Gimblett also appeared as counsel for
Bryce Williams who is the son of Sandra Williams, the
complainant in the charge of male assault female.
41. As
Chairman of Hokio A Trust, I had been acting on behalf of
the Hokio A Trust to secure property owned by the Trust and
that had been vacated by the partner of Mr Williams. Mr
Williams had by then been remanded on custody on a charge of
assaulting her.
42. The Hokio A Trust had opposed an
application for Mr Williams to be bailed to that address in
Kemp Street.
43. It is my understanding that Mr Gimblett
was acting for Mr Williams throughout the morning session in
relation to that bail application.
44. Although Judge
Lynch and Mr Gimblett both acknowledged this conflict of
interests, it was of sufficient seriousness to prejudice my
right to impartial legal advice when a remand in custody was
contemplated.
45. Due to his commitment to his client, it
was not until I entered the courtroom at 2.15pm that day
that I heard for the first time, the charges that I was
facing.
46. Lawyers acting on behalf of the Trust have
filed an application with the Maori Land Court to resolve
issues that have arisen as a direct result of the decisions
made by the District Court in relation to the bail
application Mr Gimblett filed on behalf of his client, Bryce
Williams, and that was heard in this court that morning. As
I was being held in custody at the time, I am not privy to
the submissions Mr Gimblett made on behalf of his client to
secure bail.
47. My remand in custody has therefore
seriously prejudiced the Trust that I chair in favour of the
client Mr Gimblett represented in Court that
morning.
48. That alone should be sufficient grounds to
vary the bail conditions imposed upon me when I was deprived
of the right to consult an impartial duty
solicitor.
The Bail Act 2000
49. Section 8 (1)
(a) (i) is quite specific in considering whether there is
just cause for detention. The court must, and I stress the
word must, take into account whether there is a risk that
the defendant may fail to appear in court on the date to
which the defendant has been remanded.
50. As Judge
Atkins witnessed for himself, previous non-appearances had
been due to non-notification by a legal aid lawyer who was
dismissed in the Palmerston North District Court and with
full endorsement from Judge Atkins.
51. It was my bail
officer who alerted me to this appearance that I would have
missed if he had not brought it to my attention.
52. I
have since made arrangements for court documents to be
served on Anne Hunt so that I can be confident they will not
go astray and so that she can remind me of my
commitments.
53. The NZ Police might cite a few instances
to justify their opposition to bail, but the Court needs to
bear in mind that my bail conditions have frequently
exceeded the parameters of the law. For instance, the police
arrested me on a breach of bail while I was attending a
private ceremony at the Foxton RSA as a member of that club
to honour veterans receiving service medals on Armistice
Day. That cannot constitute an offence.
54. Then there is
another occasion when I was arrested by the police at 1am
and was bailed to live elsewhere, even though I protested at
the time that the trespass notice was invalid. Eight weeks
later, Judge Dawson tossed out the trespass charge on the
grounds that the trespass notice was invalid. In other
words, the bail conditions exceeded the purposes of the Bail
Act as it was not an offence for me to occupy my own home.
55. As Justice Gendall said when I applied for that
bail variation:
7. The power to impose conditions of bail
is contained under s31 of the Bail Act 2000. It provides
that the District Court if it releases a defendant in bail
may impose conditions as to reporting and such other
conditions that are reasonable necessary to ensure the
defendant appears in Court on the date to which he has been
remanded, does not interfere with any witnesses and does not
commit any offence whilst on bail. Bail conditions must be
logically related to the risk and no more than in reasonably
necessary to address this.
56. For far too long, the
Police have imposed or sought bail conditions that exceed
the provisions of the Bail Act as an excuse to arrest me
whenever I encounter people breaching by-laws which is an
unlawful act according to the Crimes Act.
57. As Justice
Gendall has pointed out, bail conditions must be logically
related to the risk and no more than is necessary to address
this. It is not an offence to tell people not to break the
law, particularly when it places our lake at risk.
58. It
is not an offence for instance for me to live in my home
down at the lake because s18 of ROLD Act 1956 preserves my
right to free and unrestricted use. It is not reasonable for
the Lake Domain Board to pass resolutions that are ultra
vires the Reserves Act 1977 under which the Domain is
gazetted.
59. I am not a flight risk, because I relish
the opportunity to appear in court and defend charges laid
by the NZ Police.
60. There is no risk that the defendant
may interfere with witness or evidence, as the NZ Police
have already conducted a thorough search of his property
under S6 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, and
trustees of the Hokio A Trust that I chair have already
briefed Trust lawyers to address matters relating to Sandra
Williams and her son Bryce.
61. I understand the Maori
Land Court has scheduled a hearing later this month to
address matters relating to this property.
62. The final
grounds for denying bail is the risk a defendant may offend
on bail. The NZ Police may lay charges, even charges of a
serious nature, but until they are proven in court, a
defendant is entitled to a presumption of
innocence.
63. This presumption of innocence is
particularly relevant when the NZ Police have failed to
secure a conviction for the last fifteen charges in
succession.
Prejudice to a self-represented
litigant.
64. In consideration of just cause for
continued detention, the Court should take into account the
possibility of prejudice to the defence in the preparation
of the defence.
65. First, I would like to point out that
the only reason I had access to a pen is that a guard had
taken pity on me following an assault that should never have
happened.
66. Stationery itself is in limited
supply.
67. All outgoing phone calls from prisoners are
recorded and may be used in evidence against the
defendant.
68. When Anne Hunt visited me during the
weekend, I was not permitted to take any notes with
me.
69. Even though she is my longstanding McKenzie
Friend, she was not permitted to bring into the visitors’
room a pen or paper. Nor could she bring with her copies of
the law.
70. It was not until 2pm yesterday afternoon
that I was able to hold a private conversation with Anne
Hunt as my McKenzie Friend, and this was a garbled and
rushed volley of information in the hope that she would be
able to prepare a submission in readiness for a hearing the
next morning. I suspect she would have worked through the
night to research previous court judgements, and produce
this in time for today.
71. I was unable to provide her
with information relating to either the charges or
opposition to bail so that she could check the references in
order to challenge claims made by the prosecution that I
totally refute.
72. Collaboration between Anne Hunt as my
McKenzie Friend and me is longstanding, and not just a
get-out-of-jail-free card.
73. There are a total of ten
charges, some of such severity that the penalty that could
be imprisonment for fourteen years.
74. This situation is
clearly unsatisfactory.
75. I do not have access to any
of my files nor can I uplift the exhibits that I had
intended to produce as evidence.
76. I have been advised
that some of my property has already been stolen, including
the cell phone that I used to record evidential photographs
and video footage.
77. The minimum standards of criminal
procedure include the right to a fair hearing, the right to
be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law
and the right to present a defence. All these minimum rights
enshrined will be denied me if I remain remanded in custody.
The Bill of Rights Act is no discretionary. It is
mandatory.
Serious prejudice
78. Finally, a
remand in custody will exacerbate serious prejudice on a
number of fronts.
79. Financially, the loss of income
over a three week period has caused hardship and
inconvenience as all my automatic payments are defaulted
upon, incurring additional costs to reinstate utilities such
as power and phone.
80. The lake restoration programme
has had a major setback and it is now unlikely that the lake
will now be sufficiently clean for next year’s
commemorative swim to honour Lord Freyberg who trained in
the lake before heading off to Gallipoli for his heroic
swim.
81. Timber and other items purchased by the Lake
Restoration Joint Working Party chaired by Whatarangi
Winiata have been stolen from my property and of course
there is the loss of the trailer which I had purchased in
good faith to transport the pump purchased to remove the
sediment from the lake bed.
82. All these items have been
stored outside, because the NZ Police hold the view that the
rowers have more right to store obsolete equipment in a
building they neither own nor lease, than the owners have to
store lake restoration equipment purchased from our own
resources to clean up a lake that is in this state due to
the refusal by the Lake Domain Board to enforce by-laws
approved by the Minister of Conservation.
83. During my
absence from the lake, there will have been other motorised
boats launched on the lake, increasing the risk that an
invasive weed has already been introduced onto the lake,
causing irreversible damage. This is despite the stance
taken by Area Commander Pat Handcock that there must be
environmental compliance. If just one of these weeds has
entered the lake in my absence, the weed mat will render the
lake unsuitable for any boating in the future.
84. Yet
again, the NZ Police have demonstrated that recreational
activities by those accessing the lake free of charge take
precedence over the rights of owners to protect this
privately-owned ancestral land of great cultural
significance from further degradation and
desecration.
85. Plans to upgrade the housing stock and
utilities at Hokio Beach have taken a back seat while I have
been unable to progress this development. Delays arranging
for our forestry to be harvested will reduce our income this
year considerably.
86. But most importantly, Mua-Upoko
is moving into the most crucial phase of its history, when
those of us who have mana over the whenua have
just one chance to salvage our proud heritage and our legacy
from those who will, and have, stolen it from us. If we
fail, our claim is forever extinguished.
87. Genocide;
that’s what happened to Mua-Upoko when the English
supplied muskets to Te Rauparaha and Ngati Toa to wipe us
out and seize our lands for settlement and a
railway.
88. To finance a Commission of Inquiry, the
Government confiscated 13,000 acres of forestry in the
Tararua Ranges.
89. Those who fled the wrath of Te
Rauparaha, the torture, the cannibalism were the very same
people who were prepared to swoop into the district and lie
on oath in court to claim our lands, land that belonged only
to those who preserved ahi kaa despite knowing what
their fate if captured. By the 1890’s, there were only 76
Mua-Upoko survivors.
90. As kupapa, the MTA has
stolen our right to negotiate a settlement based on our
grievances and is insisting upon going to direct
negotiation, avoiding the very hearings that would expose
their deceit. By granting the MTA the mandate based on 10%
support and flawed whakapapa, the Crown will be able
to extinguish 29 legitimate claims and all that means to us,
those whose ancestors suffered, suffered more deeply even
than the Jews. Our ancestors faced cannibalism, not just for
those who died in battle but those who were captured, those
who were herded like sheep to be killed off one by one as
fresh meat to feed their enemy. Taueki as the ariki
of Mua-Upoko would have been singled out for excruciating
torture.
91. My father bestowed upon me, even though I am
one of the younger members of a large family, the mantle of
leadership, and it is my responsibility, nay my duty to
stand up to those, those kupapa, those imposters who stole
our lands, our history and our mana.
92. Just as these
kupapa lied on oath in court to steal our lands, our
forests, our lake, and our mana; this Government is
compounding our grievance by allowing them to steal our
Treaty settlement as well. I am Mua-Upoko’s strongest
advocate, and my people are relying on me to stand up for
them.
93. Having recently received evidence that the
Crown has been negotiating unbeknown to us for a decade or
more with MTA behind our back, this is eleventh hour stuff,
with urgent hearings before Judge Fox, Sir Tamata Reedy and
Sir Doug Kidd in a desperate bid to prevent history
repeating itself.
94. In terms of the Horowhenua Block,
we are talking of a grievance valued at a billion dollars by
the local council’s calculations. One billion
dollars!
95. We retain ownership of the lake in title but
after last year’s Supreme Court mess and the attitude of
the local constabulary, all that means is our name on a
tatty piece of paper.
96. Nevertheless there are some
nuggets in there. Yet the police obstinately cling to
internal legal advice rather than seek guidance from Crown
Law on matters that have been settled by the Court of Appeal
and Supreme Court. Whenever I wave these judgements under
their nose, the police are consistent in their response.
They have probably been taught them back at the station.
Tell Phil, ‘it is over my head’. Ignorance of the law as
explained in simple language by these superior courts is not
good enough when they deprive me of my liberty and besmirch
my reputation.
97. As Judge Lynch said in his minute:
“While the police may consider that the Supreme Court
decision cements their decision to prosecute, that is not
the end of the matter. The prospects of proving these
charges beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the
difficulties the police have experienced to date in this
prosecution against Mr Taueki and the public interest in
proceeding with these (remaining) charges after all this
time, now needs to be properly considered. That is of course
the function of the prosecutor not the court”.
98. But
the police prefer to keep at least one charge live at all
times. That means that I remain permanently on bail so that
if I so much as sneeze, they can jump out of the bushes and
accusing me of breaching it. To be arrested on Armistice
Day, in the Foxton RSA for talking to my cousin Rita is the
height of the abuse of freedoms our veterans fought and died
to defend. Yet is is abused by the police in the very
premises where these rights should be
respected.
99. According to the internal advice of the
police, the owners don’t even have the same rights as the
rowers. The police will watch benevolently nearby while the
rowers break into the building we own and toss out the lake
restoration gear that is vital to save our lake that is
dying. But when we do essentially the same thing, to toss
out the junk they have left there, we , the owners are
breaking the law. That’s why I am in court here today,
that’s why I’m no longer prepared to sit around and be
arrested and handcuffed and be told by the police I cannot
live in my own home, cannot protect my lake, cannot stop
people putting dirty boats on our lake that will kill
it.
100. Due to these lies told in the Native Land Court,
the Crown has been able to steal our lands, our lake and
now they are resorting to the same tactics to steal my
freedom as well.
101. As Anne has told Pat Handcock, the
police are using those with an ulterior motive to stick the
boot into me so that they have the excuse they need to steal
my freedom, to silence me.
102. I am a political
prisoner.
103. The human rights lawyer who is taking my
documents off-shore to the United Nations, was the first to
describe me as that.
104. I am no fool. For ten years I
worked in London as an accountant with as many as 200 staff
under me, lived prosperously in the suburb of SW1, managed
a pub that became a watering-hole of choice for
ex-pats.
105. Why would I come back to this country, to
live in what many people could call a hovel, scarcely able
to feed myself and my loyal companions, my elderly dogs
knowing that for me, a good day is one where I am not
arrested, not assaulted, not pilloried in the media? I get
arrested for being assaulted, how bizarre is that? The
charge is disorderly behaviour inciting violence, and the
blood congealing in my hear is evidence to prove that
charge.
106. I came back here because my ancestors called
to me, they told me our lake is dying and we need you to
save it. You might not understand that, but it is as real to
me as the resurrection is to Christians.
107. I will say
to you the same thing your honour that I told Judge Fox, Sir
Tamati Reedy and Sir Doug Kidd, that history is repeating
itself. The courts are prepared to listen to the lies, told
on oath, to steal that which is precious to us, in my case,
my very freedom.
108. I value my freedom not because I
want to walk down the street or go down to the RSA to play a
game of pool with Bryan. I value my freedom only because
Mua-Upoko needs me, my lake needs me.
109. This, what is
going on in this very courtroom this very day, is part of a
history that will bring shame upon this country.
110. It
will bring shame on this country that prides itself on race
relations, prides itself on the integrity of the police
force, prides itself on our clean green image – and yes,
our lake is green, green with algae and
pollution.
111. This day will be written about in history
books.
112. In considering whether there is just cause
for continued detention, this court has the discretion to
take into consideration
(a) The nature of the offence for
which the defendant is charged and whether it is a grave or
less serious one of its kind
(b) The strength of evidence
and the probability of conviction or otherwise
(g) The
possibility of prejudice to the defence in the preparation
of the defence if the defendant is remanded in
custody.
113. Can I add to that list, one other thing
that is vitally important, because it is upon the foundation
of our Treaty that this court has any jurisdiction at all.
114. I am here as a a Treaty partner, a Treaty partner
who is less than impressed with the judgement of those who
sit on the bench in the highest court in the land, the
Supreme Court.
115. They never even mentioned the Treaty,
not once.
116. But I will mention the Treaty, because I
know very well the reason people have accused me of things I
have not done. The police know as well as I do, that when I
appear before the court on these latest ten charges and the
remaining two, they do not have the evidence to secure a
conviction.
117. But that’s not what’s at stake
here.
118. The person who accuses me of assaulting her,
her daughter is the chair of the MTA and a Treaty
negotiator. Her son-in-law is MTA’s lawyer and is a Treaty
negotiator. Another Treaty negotiator is Doctor Procter who
made arrangements for me to be locked up in police cells for
24 hours, who set me up on a false accusation of assault.
That is their modus operandi when important hearings are
scheduled as they were then, and as they are now. My
innocence was viewed by the Judge on video footage taken
just outside the doors here. But, and this is all on record
in the transcripts, the police opposed bail. And so I was
compelled to make a false confession in order to get out on
bail so that I could attend an important judicial conference
of the Waitangi Tribunal and the two-day hearing of the
Maori Land Court that had been four years in
gestation.
119. Is this what we have come to in our
society? That I am compelled to lie and confess to things I
have not done just so that I can get out of prison so I can
speak on behalf of my tribe, the people who are the
descendents of those who deserved better from the
Crown.
120. The Crown wields the weapon of law far more
effectively than the weapons of war Te Rauparaha
used.
Serious prejudice indeed
121. A further
remand in custody will deprive me of my right as a Treaty
partner to participate in Treaty settlement negotiations
which are at a crucial phase with comprehensive research
documents released a fortnight ago that I have not even
seen, let alone read.
122. A further remand in custody
will deprive me of my right as the Chair of the Hokio A
Trust to attend a Maori Land Court hearing scheduled to take
place on the 22nd of this month and give evidence in
relation to a property in Kemp Street about matters resolved
by the Trust last June.
123. A further remand in custody
will deprive me of my right to appear as the leading
applicant in a civil claim that is due to be heard in the
Wellington High Court against the Horowhenua District
Council on the grounds that the local authority has
unlawfully discharged Levin’s stormwater into the
privately-owned Lake Horowhenua, creating a nuisance for
more than 40 years.
124. I also need to meet with
Whatarangi Winiata as soon as possible to decide what can be
done to protect our lake restoration gear as the police
obviously refuse to let owners store their own gear in their
own buildings on their own land. Material we had purchased,
such as timber to repair the Block building has already gone
missing from the lake site, whilst stored outside because
the police are even prepared to arrange for a 24 hour scene
guard rather than let us store it in our own building.
125. From Sunday 23 March until Tuesday 25 March, when
Inspector Shepherd arrived to stand them down, a police car
was parked down at the lake watching me day and night.
Recording of proceedings
126. Finally I would like
to place on record that I did not oppose the application by
Martin Cleave to record proceedings in the Levin District
Court on 7 May 2014 and 7 July 2014, and in fact welcomed
it.
127. I have been told that the reason the application
to record was declined is because the court does not
consider me to be a ‘shrinking violet’. That should not
be justification to deny me my right to the process of open
justice affirmed by the Court of Appeal in what has been
hailed as a landmark decision.
128. As the Court of
Appeal affirmed in this landmark decision delivered by
Justice Grant Hammond:
98. What may be written about is
both innocence and guilt, or for that matter the
‘unproven’ cases in our courts. This may well be
uncomfortable for one party or another, but it is part of
the process of open justice and even wider considerations of
freedom of expression.
129. Accordingly, I have served
copies of this pre-trial submission on the media as well as
the Court and the Police Prosecutor. Anne Hunt’s Court of
Appeal judgement recognises the right of this documentary
production company to receive and report on the contents of
this submission.
130. The NZ Police have already done
much to prejudice my right to a fair hearing by vilifying me
in the mainstream media with statements that I know to be
untrue, but cannot refute until my innocence is established
once their charges are subjected to the scrutiny of a Judge,
and perhaps jury.
131. I would remind this case of the
contempt of court proceedings that Dr David Collins QC as
Solicitor-General brought against the Dominion Post
following their coverage of the Urewera Terrorism Raids.
International experts were brought in to examine the impact
of adverse media coverage prior to a jury
trial.
Proposed bail conditions
132. In
conclusion, I would reiterate the comments made by Justice
Gendall in response to an application for a bail variation
while awaiting trial on a charge that was dismissed: Bail
conditions must be logically related to the risk and no more
than is reasonably necessary to address
this.
133. The Maori Land Court and the Waitangi
Tribunal have been notified of recent events, and have been
asked to put in place security arrangements to protect me as
much as anybody else. The Maori Land Court is aware that
Vivienne Taueki has sought a review of the assault charges
she had laid against Sandra William at the AGM of the MTA.
After Sandra Williams claimed that she was the custodian of
this marae, the Police arrested Vivienne for trespass
and escorted her down to the Levin Police Station. Security
guards at the Waitangi Tribunal Conference were on full
alert after Anne Hunt and Bryan Ten Have reported being
assaulted by Sandra Williams during a luncheon adjournment
and also a morning session.
134. I make no apologies for
my inability to serve this lengthy submission on the court
within the usual time frame, but my remand in custody has
already exposed the difficulties mounting my defence while
on remand in custody.
135. I am grateful for the prison
guard who lent me a pen.
136. Nor am I prepared to make
any apologies for any errors that might have slipped
through. I was unable to make arrangements to be able to
phone Anne Hunt until 2pm yesterday, and even then, the call
was limited to the very brief time allocated by Corrections.
There was no time for me to be able to pause or let Anne
Hunt clarify any matter I raised.
137. Visiting
conditions for last Sunday’s visit precluded me from
taking the notes I had jotted down with me, or for her to
bring into the visitor’s room even a pencil and
paper.
138. Yet upon this submission, rests consideration
of just cause for continued detention.
139. Due to the
injuries already sustained following a serious assault while
remanded in custody and due to the further risks to my
personal safety; due to the failure by the police to secure
a conviction on any of the last fifteen charges I have
faced; due to the presumption of innocence until proved
guilty according to law and due to the nature of the alleged
offence being, as the court has already conceded, a less
serious one of its kind, I am asking to be remanded at
large, subject to the following conditions:
a) To attend
personally at the District Court at Levin at every time and
place to which the hearing may from time to time
adjourned.
b) To report to the District Court at Levin
every Monday and Friday.
c) To live at the address of 17
Nash Parade Foxton Beach
d) To notify the District Court
at Levin of any change to my bail address necessitated by a
change in circumstances
e) Not to contact Sandra Williams
or any other witness directly or indirectly
f) Not to
attend any tribal activity unless accompanied by a lawyer,
Vivienne Taueki or Anne Hunt, and to notify the court
registrar or convenor to put in place security arrangements
at least 48 hours in advance of this activity taking
place
Dated at Levin this 7th day of May
2014
_____________
Philip Taueki
(for the
Defence)
Levin District Court
Police Prosecution
Service
Martin Clease
Martin Clease
ENDS