Last Thursday Justice Rodney Hansen sentenced Tame Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara to two and a half years in prison. Iti and Kemara were found guilty of six firearms charges and not guilty of four. The jury could not decide on whether or not the pair were guilty on the criminal group charge.
The response from Maori was rapid and universal – it was a bullshit sentence. In a break from the orthodox, Maori MPs slammed the decision. Hone Harawira pointed out that:
The judge simply picked the worst bits out of 67,000 pages of evidence to justify the most extreme interpretation of events.
It's a waste of time having a jury trial if the judge can retry the case at sentencing ... by vindicating the actions of the police the state has made political prisoners out of them both.
Te Ururoa Flavell expressed a similar sentiment:
This was never just about the charges or the offences.
This was about Tuhoe and the mess caused in the lead-up to this sentencing.
Mr Flavell says the harsh sentence was intended to cover up the botched case.
And David Clendon from the Greens had this to say:
The sentences handed down to Mr Iti and Mr Kemara are at the steep end of the scale.
New Zealand already has an expanded prison population and I fail to see what will be achieved by incarcerating Mr Iti and Mr Kemara.
By convention, politicians don’t criticise judicial decision. So, with that in mind, it’s significant that Justice Hansen’s decision has met universal public criticism from Maori MPs. To me, the political response is indicative of the anger many Maori feel against the decision.
Annette Sykes thinks it’s a case of history repeating itself and, I think, that’s hard to argue against:
The decision today is a case of history repeating itself. In 1916 Tuhoe Prophet Rua Kenana was found not guilty for treason by a jury. Despite the verdict, the judge concerned found him guilty of resisting arrest and sentenced him to one year hard labour, followed by 18 months imprisonment. The jury were so incensed over the harshness of the sentence, they submitted a petition and had the sentence reduced.
Tame and Te Rangikaiwhiria, much like their tipuna Rua Kenana, have been wrongfully imprisoned and their sentence will be subject to a number of appeals.
Leonie Pihama calls Iti and Kemara “political prisoners”. Support is also coming from iwi, including Ngati Awa.
Personally, I’m gutted with the sentence. Justice Hansen didn’t, in my opinion, give enough regard to the mitigating factors and he appears, implicitly at the very least, to have endorsed the Crown’s construction of events even though the jury did not on four firearms charges and the criminal group charge. Justice Hansen also imputed an intention from a few selective pieces of evidence. Evidence that he did not give regard to considering the whole circumstances. Also, in another erroneous move, Justice Hansen lists the political views of a person not charged as an aggravating factor.
The learned Judge also takes it upon himself to declare that the defendants were establishing a private militia. Something the jury could not decide on. If they had, then the jury would have convicted the four on the criminal group charge. It is unjust, if you ask me, that the Judge can do this. The jury expressed no opinion on the charge so the Judge should not proceed as if the jury found that the defendants were participating in a criminal group.
The sentences will no doubt be appealed. Whether the sentence is reduced is a moot point. What is not in contention is that this is another slap in the face against Maori, tino rangatiratanga and Tuhoe. A result any less than that which was given would reduce the Crown and undermine the power of the system. A result any less than that which was given would elevate the legitimacy of Maori nationalism and that, for the Crown, is not acceptable.
For further discussion see this from Marty Mars and this very good discussion from Maia at The Hand Mirror and here are some of my thoughts from a few weeks back.
I am shocked by the sentence, because I don't think that the sentence is based on the charges of which they were found guilty. I thought firearms offences were usually punished with fines. At the very least it's bloody bizarre that sentences of incarceration have been given. But really, that's being too kind to the judge. These sentences are racist, and I hope they are overturned on appeal.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's all apiece with setting up the roadblock on the confiscation line. It's all about letting those uppity Tuhoe know who is boss.
Agree. The sentence is outrageous. The man who killed Rosemary Ives in a 'hunting accident' whilst acting unlawfully on public land got a 2.5 year sentence for manslaughter and walks out 11 months later, yet the activites taking place on private lands that caused no deaths where the jury were undecided as to the criminal group charge receives a like sentence. Ridiculous. The Police acted unlawfully and the victims of that unlawfulness are punished to same rate as a reckless hunter that caused a pesons death. To top it off, Justice Wolf decides that foreign nationals (The Rena) should get lesser sentences because they have a harder time in prison being away from home. Moreover, the $37 mil that they cost the tax payer, and the devastation of the environment, food sources and livelihoods of many in the region (predominantly Maori) only warrants a 7 month sentence and Maritime NZ are happy with that sentence. Instituional racism is alive and well.
ReplyDeleteAnd the worse thing is that they will unable to obtain work as private security contractors because of the convictions.....
ReplyDeleteIt's also a slap in the face for those pakeha who believe in justice and a future for Aotearoa.
ReplyDeleteIt was a setup to cover their blunder of the worst kind against Tuhoe and Maori in General.
ReplyDeleteMr Crimp's statement of Maori in Jail and unemployed run down failure and $$$$ spent, Acts Political failure with Brash Orewa speech..the judge lives in Epsom, Keys teapot saga made public with Banks who happens to get in a tangle with Kim.Com..someone had to take the cover up fall looks like it was our two from Tuhoe..Aroja kia korua e hoa maa.
Trying to justify their stupid blunder and cover their arses is going to be very, very costly for them and the tax payer. But certainly not for Iti and Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara...They are now martyrs and elevated to political prisoners, who will fuel the movement for change.
ReplyDeleteyep, they're probably inside doing a massive recruitment drive. Getting ready to cause the country more trouble and embarrassment. For heavens sake people, do you think they were attending a teddy bears picnic in the Ureweras? I don't care what charges are used to get them behind bars, as long as they are there. I hope the justice system loses the key asap. We don't need scum like them in our society. Martyrs? bloody idiots more like!
ReplyDeleteWhat would Godfery, Flavell, Harawira, Clendon, Sykes, and Pihema be saying if four white separatists were jailed for similar dads' army antics?
ReplyDeleteThat blanket statement doesn't contribute anything. It depends on the circumstances. If it were a straight role reversal, prison wouldn't be appropriate. We know there is silly talk about race war on Stormfront, we know Kyle Chapman and his mates are running around down south with guns and posing for photos and posting them on fb... but it's just that - silly buggers. The Police should show similar concern and raid their community, arrest them, charge them with terrorism charges and drag out the process for 5 years. Of course, they're not though.
Deletemolotov cocktails?
ReplyDeletePolice Commissioner Marshall's statements on Q+A this morning raised more questions than he answered. Much of it simply made no logical sense; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/05/27/sentencing-the-urewera-four-an-affront-to-our-sense-of-justice-part-wha/
ReplyDeleteenough of the Maori this Maori that, we are all New Zealanders, [although some parts of society will never agree] wonder who ? no need even to guess. there would not be this outcry if it was non Maori in this situation, this clown has burnt national flags, discharged shotguns on Marai, etc. how much lee way do you clowns want. winston has it right, one law for all and to hell with this continued seperate racist society created i might add by Maori, even south africa wanted to ban the Maori All Blacks from playing, [because there were only Maori in the team} anyone getting the messaage ??? idiots the lot of you.
ReplyDeleteYou are a titan of reason and intellect. How old are you? 12?
Deleteno, just not one eyed, trying to get this beautiful country and its people regardless of race, to get put behind them constant racist comments which seem to be derived from one part of society classing itself as seperate, ie Maori this and Maori that. and "our people" im sure you understand what this implies, all i am asking is that we become one society, with our ethnic background still with us. thanks for publishing anyway.
DeleteWe are one society, but a soceity made up of people from different cultures. I'm a New Zealander, but a Maori too. I'm not going to forsake my culture because a few people feel uncomfortable with it.
DeleteMorgan, I disagree. My "blanket" statement got you to say that you, Flavell, Harawira, Clendon, Sykes, and Pihema, would all defend, "if it were a straight role reversal, any white militants jailed for weapons offences related to an anti-Maori cause. Are you aware that, according to the police affidavit, one of the Urewera 4 wanted to kill a few whites to get used to killing, and wanted to drive pakeha farmers off their farms? Were you aware that person was the main suspect in the Brash email thefts?
ReplyDeleteI think you could be much clearer in your second sentence. There is no double standard here. If it were Pakeha, Chapman and his lot for example, who were jailed for the same things as Iti and co I would not think that jail was appropriate. Are you aware that there were over 60,000 pieces of evidence much of which negates most of the silly talk. This was bravado, a bunch of boys playing silly buggers. You need a good dose of reality. Given you have taken the Police affidavit as law, have you also read the defence statement of claim and given that similar weight. And if the evidence was so damning, as you seem to think, why could the jury not convict on the criminal group charge? Only a collection of strict liability firearms sentences - one's that people are convicted of on a daily basis.
DeleteThe practice-killing drive-pakeha-farmers-off-their farms evidence was disallowed because the surveillance was ruled illegal. All that was left to put before the court was boys and girls without gun licences and a collection of guns, some illegal. Yes, I read the defence statement, which looked to me like a collection of fairy tales intended to sway the bleeding hearts in the jury. You did not say whether you were aware that one of the Urewera 4 wanted to kill a few whites to get used to killing, and wanted to drive pakeha farmers off their farms. Neither did you say that you were aware that that person was the main suspect in the Brash email thefts?
DeleteYou're wrong. All evidence was permitted in the trial of the Urewera four. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was obtained illegally, but it was in the "significant public interest" that it were ruled permissible in the case of the four. As such, the Crown, Justice Hansen and the jury had access to all the information yet could still not rule on the criminal group charge. The 'evidence' the Police obtained was clearly not as persuasive in the face of the defence's case.
DeleteYou cannot comment on the intention of one of the suspects to kill a few Pakeha without viewing that evidence in context it is meaningless. Was it said on the piss as a throwaway statement, or was it said, for example, a strategy session. Context is everything and without statements are often misleading or meaningless.
So you are saying that at some times it is OK for someone to say that he wanted to kill a few whites to get used to killing.
DeleteI'm saying that your interpretation of events is one-dimensional and you have clearly gleaned your understanding from news reports and the like. I suggest you read the judgments of the Courts, consider the alternative arguments and then come back here with your perspective. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who clearly has little grasp of the case.
DeleteKia Ora Morgan and All, I know its frustrating to see Maori being treated differently, but as a fact of life in our country I have gotten used to it. I agree that the sentences that were handed to these 2 gentlemen are unjust. I train young Maori in kapa haka, because we use taiaha in our training and performance, and perform a Haka written to challenge the govt on treaty and governance would I not be guilty of offensive weapon charges and by association criminal group charges..... if Justice Hansen had his say I would be locked up, or at least thats how it feels. Im no expert but does the Justice system fire a judge if he gets it wrong on appeal or do they just frown... (Stands to reason why all Judges look like they are sad)
ReplyDeleteMorgan, I notice that you are listed as a law student. Therefore, I assume you are training for life in law. You should be aware that in a society based on law, killing, stealing, and driving non-Maori farmers off their land is never OK. The chiefs who signed the treaty 172 years ago chose a system based on law because their old system of “might is right” was killing them. Your comments indicate that you think in some circumstances, killing, stealing, and driving non-Maori farmers off their land is OK.
ReplyDeleteYour ignorance astounds me. Maori operated under their own system of law with governing concepts, to cite two examples, such as tapu (prohibition) and utu (reciprocity). Your ignorance of such subjects should really disqualify you from commenting. However, in a free society people can say whatever they want - even people who cannot even get basic facts right like yourself. That extends to people playing silly buggers and saying that they want to drive some white farmers off their land. The key things is, that talk was never followed through with, let alone a serious comment, and the Judge found no reason to give it weight in sentencing which indicates that it was not a serious or credible threat.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, when accusing other people of ignorance, you ought to be very careful that yours is not showing. Do you know who Mike Butler is? Do you know all of his credentials? Do you know that he has been studying and writing about Maori since before you were born? He has more knowledge about Maori, the Treaty and NZ History in his little finger than you are ever likely to know. Do you really think Mike doesn't know about things like tapu and utu? Maori may have lived by those principles back then, but they would not have thought of them as such noble sounding ideas as a governing concept or a system of law. They had no concept of such ideals. They were simply tools of survival.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, I can't help but notice that while comments by people such as Mike and John Ansell are calm and state clearly their arguments without resorting to abuse or name calling, that you resort to abusing them once you run out of arguments yourself, and then you either ban them or refuse to publish their comments. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I wonder what other readers make of your apparent lack of enough knowledge to debate an issue without resorting to abuse or hiding behind censorship? I will be very interested to see if this comment gets published or not!
What a sanctimonious load of rubbish, Brenda. From the above comments, Mike Butler clearly has little to no grasp of Maori and Maori history. You too, are on a similar level of stupidity... It's great to see. Maori had governing principles and an established system of customary law. Just because it did not look like a common law system, a civil law system or so on does not make it any less legitimate. You're also on tenuous ground where you infer that in comparison with English systems Maori would have not have thought their own systems so attractive. Can you cite a source or otherwise justify such an inference? Of course you can't, you use it only as a means of justifying your pathetic prejudice. The best way to deal with you people is to attack because you don't deal is reason.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, tell us how Maori governing principles and customary law operated between 1800 and 1842.
ReplyDeleteOf the assumptions about Maori society, one of the most persistent is that because Maori society did not possess a western style legislature of judiciary, it did not possess law. Such a view meant that any Maori institutions used to maintain social order could be dismissed as merely expressions of lore… it became easy to also dismiss the philosophy or jurisprudence which underpinned Maori law.
ReplyDeleteMaori did have a distinct set if conventionally approved means of ensuring acceptable behaviour – a code of law. A “body of… rules recognised by the community as binding”. Its bases, constructs and methods of application were naturally quite different from the… model of western jurisprudence. Yet the system was clear and defined and Maori knew which acts were unacceptable “hara” or crimes.
----------
That’s from Moana Jackson, the leading authority on Maori customary law, in his seminal and instructive paper “Criminality and the Exclusion of Maori”. The paper explores Maori customary law, in particular Maori criminal law, and examines how it operated before 1840. You can also read an excellent and accessible explanation from Justice Eddie Durie, one of New Zealand’s leading jurists, in “Custom Law”. Justice Joe Williams, widely tipped to be the next Chief Justice, has also written on Maori customary law. These are three of New Zealand’s leading legal minds and all three acknowledge the existence of Maori customary law and explain its operation. Do you claim to know better than two High Court Judges and the leading academic authority on Maori law?
Yes, I'd be interested to learn the same Mike. Please tell us Morgan. Enlighten us. And of course you will be able to cite all your sources while you are at it.
ReplyDeleteIs that good enough for you Brenda, or should I cite someone as credible on these issues as John Ansell? How about I cite the National Front?
DeleteThank you Morgan. I do not claim to know better than the highly qualified people you referred to. My question though was more to do with how exactly Maori governing principles and customary law operated during the inter-tribal wars of 1800 to 1842 when about 50,000 people were slaughtered?
ReplyDeleteVery good Morgan. However I don't recall Mike claiming he knew better than anyone. That aside, all the sources you have stated are alive and well today. Therefore, they have based their opinions on either their own research or learning of other peoples research and have made their own assumptions and conclusions, just as you are doing. I would find it much more convincing if you could point to some proof from the early 1800s yourself. Something that has not already been tainted with today's biases or interpretations.
ReplyDeleteAs to your assertion that the gentlemen you reference are leading legal minds, that is your opinion. They are three out of the 35 High Court Judges and Nine Associate Judges. All three are part Maori and while I don't doubt their credentials at all, they will all naturally have a bias towards things Maori. Their legal backgrounds will also incline them to interpret past lore, as you put it, using the legal knowledge and terminology of today. That's fine. They are entitled to their own opinions. That does not negate the opinions of others who may have made different interpretations based on their own studies, knowledge and perceptions. Their opinions are just as valid. Not wrong, just different.
As for my 'pathetic prejudice' - that is you pre-judging me. You don't know me Morgan. I have quite a few part maori in my family and I love them dearly. My dislike for Tame Iti and co is because of their actions and attitudes, not because they are maori. They are a blight on New Zealand and I don't care what colour they are or what race they are from, I'd feel the same. In fact there are quite a few pakehas in prison, (and government come to think about it), who I do feel exactly the same about.
You state that people like me do not deal in reason. Really? Well, I'm not sure about me, because I can be a real hot head if I'm riled. But look at John and Mikes arguments/debates in any of your comment sections. All are calmly, reasonably, rationally stated arguments. Not once have they resorted to irrational or emotional statements. Nor have they been unreasonable or resorted to attacking you rather than the issue. I think you could learn a lot from both of them.
That is what research is. One evaluates sources and draws conclusions. In the case of the conclusions of Justice Willaims and Durie and Moana Jackson their conclusions have been thoroughly critiqued and peer reviewed which lends further credibility to their conclusions. Would you rather have reference to source documents or oral traditions from Maori? Surely those sources, without viewing in context, are less reliable than the conclusions of three leading authorities on the matter. It is not only my opinion that Justice Williams, Justice Durie and Moana Jackson are leading legal minds, it is the opinion of much of the legal profession. Hence Justice Williams is largely tipped to become Chief Justice within this decade. Justice Durie is also held in the highest regard in the judiciary and the legal profession.
ReplyDeleteI hold that their opinions disprove the opinions of those who hold otherwise. In other words the opinions of those who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a Maori legal system. If you care to read Williams, Durie and Jackson’s findings you will see there is compelling evidence supporting the existence of a Maori legal system. A legal system that western constructs can recognise and a legal system that is rooted in tikanga Maori.
Mike, I see what you are getting at. No system of law is perfect. Our present legal system does not stop murders, nor do other western legal systems stop wars. The law, no matter what form it takes, often fails and is subject to human whims and irrationality. For example, even though international law is recognised and widely observed, it does not stop war crimes and atrocities from Iraq to Bosnia.
Therefore, we agree that the inter-tribal wars, cannibalism, and slavery largely ended, from 1840, with British settlement.
ReplyDeleteAs this discussion progresses, you keep changing your propositions. First you tried to point to a double standard saying that I and other Maori defending the Urewera four would not be doing so if the defendants were Pakeha. When I made it clear that I would view the case through the same lens if the defendants were Pakeha you steered the discussion towards an isolated comment from one of the defendants. When it became clear you had not read the cases nor the alternative submissions this became a conversation about Maori history, Maori law and the intentions of the rangatira who signed the Treaty and the musket wars pre-1840. I am not interested in these debates at the moment. This was a post about the Urewera four, and it would be better to keep it that way. Please do not put words in my mouth too.
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me Morgan, was this legal system observed by all tribes. I mean, did the same laws and hara apply to all tribes, or did they each have their own set of laws and hara?
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to know what they called it before they knew any English words. What was this legal system and governing concept called? How did it operate in a time when tribes were waring with each other?
Rather than have me explain this to you, why don't you access the above papers I have cited. They're easy to access.
DeleteBecause Morgan, my debate is with you, not the writers of the papers, and I am trying to establish, for my own reasons, your level of knowledge of this subject. I want the answers in your words, not theirs.
ReplyDeleteWhy not read those papers. They are, considering they are the result of years of research, far better put than I could in a few minutes here with you. Do you want to learn, or is your issue with "me". I suspect your issue is not with the ideas because there is zero chance you could engage with and negate the ideas contained in those papers on Maori law. Pitiful really that you hide under a cloak on the internet and only want to engage in a personal debate with "me". Do you not have anything better to do? Like having a life?
ReplyDeleteOk, that tells me what I wanted to know. You don't know the answers, and rather than admit it, you are now resorting to your usual tactic of abuse. Morgan I really hope you obtain an enquiring mind, and do not spend the rest of your life just believing everything you are told, especially if it fits with what you want to believe. The world is a much richer place than that. I had hoped to teach you some small thing or two. Humility would be a good start.
ReplyDeleteOn one thing you are right - I do have a life and much better things to do than try and crow bar open your narrow and closed mind.
I have cited the evidence, evidence you have no interest in obviously. If you want to cite evidence or put forward a compelling case then good. At the moment, you have no authority. In fact, you have no point at all. I hope you take a look at those papers and others. It might give you a better shot at life.
DeleteOK, back to the Urewera 4. Justice Rodney Hansen said, in paragraph 11 of his sentencing notes, that he was satisfied that the Crown had advanced its case on the basis anticipated by the Supreme Court. He cited the opening Crown statement that the training exercises were to equip them to "kidnap people, to commit acts of sabotage, and commit basically armed combat. He noted that "a finding that the commission of further serious offences of violence was indeed the overall objective was open to the jury on the evidence". Justice Hansen did not retry Tame Iti and Rangi Kemara on sentencing as Hone Harawira alleged. I find it curious that you feel the need to explain away Kemara's statements about killing whites to get used to killing etc as out-of-context throwaway statements. Why do you feel the need to defend them? Many out there in the blogosphere see the issue more clearly that you, and they don't have to study law to be able to grasp the fact that if you do the crime, you do the time. These were not comments from pakeha.
ReplyDeleteThere was never any disagreement around the notion that if you commit a crime you should be punished for it. The issue is the degree of punishment. The Judge imputed intention. He endorsed the Crown's construction of events and sentenced them accordingly. The Judge can, of course, make findings of fact even though the jury did not make such a finding of fact. However, it is incredibly rare and poor practice for a Judge to make such a controversial finding in what is a very complex case. In most cases the sentencing Judge would accept the findings of fact from the jury and not make any personal inferences.
DeleteIti and Kemara were given harsh sentences. Sentences without precedent and ones that will, it is widely accepted, be reduced.
Your comments are not going to change my opinion and I find it curious that you feel the need to justify the sentences having obviously come here with little to no background knowledge.
You are quite correct in saying I have little or no background knowledge about unlawful possession of weapons jury trials. What is the range of sentences for straight weapons convictions, and what would be the range of sentences for statements of intention to kill, or statements of intention to drive farmers off their farms?
ReplyDelete