Harassment directed at our politicians is rising and more details emerge of the aftermath of a Sydney church stabbing. Video / NZ Herald / Getty / AP
It is seemingly all but over in the battle between a notorious Black Power member illegally squatting on coastal Māori land and the trust fighting to have him removed.
But it remains to be seen if and when Kevin Moore will be kicked off the Taranaki beachside property.
The one-time gang president, who has been affiliated with the Black Power for more than three decades, claims to be a descendant of the land and argues it is his right as tangata whenua to live there.
But the trust, which manages about 8ha of Māori freehold land at the beach under Te Ture Whenua Māori Land Act 1993, said Moore was a “squatter”. It has argued he was not a beneficiary of the land nor did he have a lease to reside there.
Despite the opposition, Moore built himself a house on the site overlooking the ocean, without consent from the New Plymouth District Council, and does not pay anything to be there.
According to trustees, he has entertained Black Power members at the property and before he took up residency, the community at Rohutu was “low key and harmonious”. They say the community was now “anxious and afraid”. Currently, there are about 30 homes in the Rohutu Block.
The trustees obtained an injunction to remove Moore but that was later stayed by agreement pending the resolution of Moore’s application to have the list of owners of the block amended to include his tīpuna, or ancestors.
The Māori Land Court rejected that application, and then his application to the High Court to review the decision of the Māori Land Court was also dismissed.
In the latest saga chapter, Moore, who is legally aided, turned to the Court of Appeal to review the Māori Land Court decision.
But on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal released its decision to dismiss it.
It is unclear whether this meant the eviction stay would now be lifted, and Moore moved on. NZME has approached both parties through their lawyers.
At the appeal hearing, held last month, Moore’s lawyer Graeme Minchin submitted Māori Land Court Judge Layne Harvey suggested to Moore that he pursue an application different to the one he had intended, which amounted to an “officially induced error” relied on by Moore to his detriment.
But the Court of Appeal ruled, like the High Court, that there was no basis for finding that Judge Harvey induced Moore into error.
Minchin further submitted that Chief Māori Land Court Judge Wilson Isaac and High Court Justice Andru Isac were wrong to find that the section of law Moore relied on did not extend to reviewing the 1884 Crown grant, which listed the holding’s beneficiaries.
There are about 30 homes in the Rohotu Block at Waitara's East Beach. Photo / RNZ
Susan Hughes, KC, on behalf of Rohutu, contended the section was concerned only with errors by the registrar or the court, not errors in the Crown grant, which the Court of Appeal agreed with.
“I’m really not sure what else I can sensibly say. As your honours will appreciate, it’s been many years of similar arguments but ever-evolving arguments,” Hughes told the court at last month’s hearing.
She said even if Moore was able to prove he was tangata whenua, it would not oblige the trustees to give him a lease.
“He does not have a lease, he will not have a lease, he has occupied this site for more than 11 years ... he’s enjoyed an illegitimate occupation of the site for all of those years - it’s time for it to end.
“The injunction was made by consent, it has been stayed to enable him to make various applications to the Māori land court, the Māori Appellate Court, to the High court and now this court and it needs to end.”
Years of legal wrangling
In 2018 in the Māori Land Court, Judge Harvey granted the trust an injunction to evict Moore.
However, he was given immediate leave to file further information in relation to establishing his links to the land.
A later decision by Chief Māori Land Court Judge Isaac ruled no errors had been made in dismissing Moore’s claim he had an ancestral link to the land.
In February last year, the case was called before Justice Isac in the High Court at New Plymouth after Moore sought a judicial review.
Moore argued there was a wrongful omission of his tīpuna from the Crown grant.
In 1958, a partition order was made by the Māori Land Court in respect of the same block. The beneficiaries identified in that order were the descendants of most of the original owners named in the Crown grant, but do not include Moore or his tīpuna.
Moore advanced his application on four grounds of review - that there was an error of law in Judge Harvey’s decision, there was an error of law and a mistake of fact in Chief Judge Isaac’s decision, and that the Chief Judge failed to consider the interests of justice in his determination.
Moore sought a declaration of illegality in relation to each ground and an order remitting the matter to the Māori Land Court to determine “whether the Partition Order was vitiated by mistake or omission in the underlying Crown grant”.
But Justice Isac dismissed all of Moore’s grounds for review and said even if he had found there was an error of approach by the Māori Land Court, he would not have exercised the discretion to grant relief.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 as a news director and Open Justice reporter. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff where she covered crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.
