Tauranga man Tio Faulkner claims he was wrongfully convicted as the Crown has no jurisdiction over the land he lives on. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Tauranga man Tio Faulkner claims he was wrongfully convicted as the Crown has no jurisdiction over the land he lives on. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
The man imprisoned after dumping hundreds of kilograms of concrete and rebar into Tauranga Harbour claims what he did was legal because his ancestors never ceded sovereignty over the land.
Tio Faulkner appeared in the High Court at Hamilton on Monday to appeal against his conviction of illegally reclaiming landand allowing pig effluent to flow into the harbour.
The appeal hearing canvased topics ranging from the tikanga of taking a pig poo sample to claims of gun-toting police.
The former Australian political operative was sentenced to three months and two weeks imprisonment in February, after attempting to construct his own coastal "park". His sentence has been served.
He was eventually charged and convicted under the Resource Management Act - a drawn-out court process resulting in Faulkner going to trial, then repeatedly refusing to meet with a probation officer to determine his financial position for a fine.
In the absence of financial information, Faulkner was sentenced to prison.
As he has done throughout the prosecution and appeal process, Faulkner represented himself in court on Monday.
Faulkner's makeshift 'park' covered almost 1000sqm at one point. Photo / BOPRC
He claimed the Bay of Plenty Regional Council had no jurisdiction over his land, saying his ancestors never ceded sovereignty.
"I require, according to the Bill of Exchange Act, a wet-ink signature [proving sovereignty]," Faulkner told Justice Paul Davison, referring to legislation from 1908.
He further asked for proof that his ancestors "sold the land to Queen Victoria".
"My ancestors shed their blood defending their right to administer their own whenua."
At one point in his submission, Faulkner began to raise his voice and cry as he spoke of regional council officers and police conducting a search warrant at the property after he denied them access.
Faulkner claimed police officers who accompanied council compliance officers had a "finger on the trigger" of a gun.
"The fact they came on with guns against innocent people. Locked and loaded, finger on the trigger without any safety. The regional council were inspecting a piggery, for goodness sake," Faulkner said.
But under further questioning by Justice Davison, Faulkner confirmed that he was not at the property on the day of the search warrant and did not see police carrying guns.
He also claimed the act of the regional council officers taking a sample of puddles on the reclaimed platform was both unlawful and inconsistent with tikanga [Māori customary law].
Those samples later showed high faecal coliform levels stemming from the piggery and were used as evidence in court.
Faulkner failed to comply with an abatement notice to cease the run-off of pig effluent into Tauranga Harbour. Photo / Supplied
"As a hapū, we do not allow our resources in our rohe to leave our rohe. No contractor can just take the whenua and deposit it anywhere."
Responding to Faulkner, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council prosecutor Adam Hopkinson said no one can claim to be exempt from the Resource Management Act.
The court that convicted Faulkner had already ruled on the issue of jurisdiction, confirming the legislation did apply to Faulkner.
On the allegations of excessive police force, Hopkinson said police accompanying council officers was a result of those officers having repeatedly been denied access to the property.
"There was no evidence of any officers using or referring to their firearms. At no stage was there any need to use firearms, and I'm not sure what the suggestion is about 'finger on the trigger'," Hopkinson said.
"Quite a different picture has been painted today. As Mr Faulkner previously acknowledged, he wasn't present."
Hopkinson also pushed back on the suggestion the council disregarded tikanga when gathering evidential samples from puddles.
"The purpose of taking the samples was to determine the extent to which [the water] was contaminated.
"Most samples came back with extremely high levels of faecal bacteria, consistent with pig effluent.
