Ngati Apa v Attorney-General

Last updated

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameNgati Apa & Anor v. Attorney-General & Others
Decided19 June 2003
Citation(s)[2003] NZCA 117; [2003] 3 NZLR 643
Transcript(s) Available here
Case history
Prior action(s)[2002] 2 NZLR 661 (HC)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Elias CJ, Gault P, Keith, Tipping & Anderson JJ
Keywords
Foreshore and seabed, Aboriginal title, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

Ngati Apa v Attorney-General was a landmark legal decision that sparked the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. The case arose from an application by eight northern South Island iwi for orders declaring the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds Maori customary land. [1] After lower court decisions and consequent appeals in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the High Court; the Court of Appeal unanimously held that the Maori Land Court had jurisdiction to determine whether areas of foreshore and seabed were Maori customary land or not. The court also held that, "The transfer of sovereignty did not affect customary property. They are interests preserved by the common law until extinguished in accordance with the law". [2] The effect of the decision was subsequently overturned by the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.

Contents

Background

Justice Keith succinctly summarised how the case got before the Court of Appeal,

[126] Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa, Rangitane and Te Atiawa applied to the Maori Land Court for an order that certain land is customary Maori land. The land is the foreshore and seabed of the Marlborough Sounds. The area includes seabed under waters within the Sounds, such as Pelorus Sound and Port Underwood, and under waters on the seaward side of the land such as the west coast of D’Urville Island. [127] Judge Hingston in the Maori Land Court gave an interim decision on a preliminary question favouring the iwi. The Attorney-General and others appealed to the Maori Appellate Court which then stated questions of law for the High Court. Ellis J in the High Court answered the questions favourably to the appellants. The iwi appeal to this Court. [3]

Judgments

The lowest common denominator of the four judgments is “crystal clear”: property rights cannot be extinguished by a “side wind”." [4]

Elias CJ

Chief Justice Sian Elias addressed four main points in her judgment.

Firstly, Elias CJ addressed the issue of who at common law owned the foreshore and seabed and held,

Any prerogative of the Crown as to property in foreshore and seabed as a matter of English common law in 1840 cannot apply in New Zealand if displaced by local circumstances. Maori custom and usage recognising property in foreshore and seabed lands displaces any English Crown Prerogative and is effective as a matter of New Zealand law, unless such property interests have been lawfully extinguished. The existence and extent of any such customary property interest is determined in application of tikanga. That is a matter for the Maori Land Court to consider on application to it or on reference by the High Court. Whether any such interests have been extinguished is a matter of law.

—  Elias CJ, Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [5]

In response to arguments by the Crown that there is a presumption of Crown ownership of the foreshore and seabed, Elias CJ cites a number of examples of nineteenth century legislation and evidence from Chief Justice Fenton acknowledging Maori customary rights below the low water mark. [6]

Secondly, the judgment rejected the argument that the Maori Land Court did not have jurisdiction to determine the status of the foreshore and seabed because this area is not land. Elias Cj notes that, "Both lake beds and river beds have been the subject of claims to the Maori Land Court without jurisdictional impediment [...]. Much legislation concerned with “land” applies to seabed and foreshore". [7]

Thirdly, Elias CJ dismisses suggestions by the Crown that Maori customary interests have been expropriated by the Harbour Acts, Territorial Seas Acts or Resource Management Act. [8]

Finally, the judgment dealt with the precedent created in In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach [1963] NZLR 461 (CA) that, "any Maori customary property in the foreshore had been extinguished once the contiguous land above high water mark had lost the status of Maori customary land". [9] Elias CJ held, "an approach which precludes investigation of the fact of entitlement according to custom because of an assumption that custom is displaced by a change in sovereignty or because the sea was used as a boundary for individual titles on the shore is wrong in law." [10]

Gault P

The judgment of President Gault is the only dissent from the majority's overruling of InRe the Ninety-Mile Beach. Gault P's argument is that,

Some of the reasoning in the judgments in the Ninety-Mile Beach case is open to criticism and the second of the conclusions stated in the preceding paragraph should be viewed as subject to the facts of particular cases. But I consider that those conclusions are consistent with the intended application of the provisions of the successive Native Lands Acts. Interests in native lands bordering the sea, after investigation by the Native Land Court (which encompassed ascertaining interests of any other complainants), were extinguished and substituted with grants in fee simple. It does not seem open now to find that there could have been strips of land between the claimed land bordering the sea and the sea that were not investigated and in which interests were not identified and extinguished once Crown grants were made.

— Gault P, Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [11]

However Gault P notes that if land investigated by the Native Land Court was described as not bordering the sea, the Maori Land Court would have jurisdiction to rule on the status of the strip between land and sea. [12]

Keith and Anderson JJ

The decision of Keith and Anderson JJ was delivered by Justice Keith. The judgment of Keith and Anderson JJ concurs with that of Elias CJ that at common law pre-existing native title and rights continues to exist despite the conferring of radical title in the Crown. [13] The judgment also notes that under New Zealand property law, "property in sea areas could be held by individuals and would in general be subject to public rights such as rights of navigation". [14] On InRe the Ninety Mile Beach, their judgment also notes that it is wrongly decided; "Whether the foreshore was also investigated and was determined to be the Crown's in the course of a particular process is a matter of fact, not a matter to be assumed." [15] On the Territorial Sea Acts they additionally observe, "legislative measures claimed to extinguish indigenous property and rights must be clear and plain". [16]

Tipping J

Justice Tipping joined with the majority of the court in overturning InRe the Ninety Mile Beach, and with the whole of the court in declaring that there was no barrier stopping the Maori Land Court from investigating Maori customary rights in the foreshore and seabed. [17]

Tipping J restates the problem with the reasoning in InRe the Ninety Mile Beach,

[207] The learned Judge proceeded, however, in his next paragraph to say that:“. . . the rights of the Maoris to their tribal lands depended wholly on the grace and favour of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who had an absolute right to disregard the Native title to any lands in New Zealand, whether above high water mark or below high water mark.”
[208] It is at this point that I consider, with respect, that His Honour's reasoning started to go wrong. Maori customary title was, as I have already discussed, not a matter of grace and favour but of common law. Having become part of the common law of New Zealand, it could not be ignored by the Crown unless and until Parliament had clearly extinguished it, and then only subject to whatever might have been put in its place.

— Tipping J, Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [18]

Related Research Articles

Iwi are the largest social units in New Zealand Māori society. In Māori, iwi roughly means 'people' or 'nation', and is often translated as "tribe," or "a confederation of tribes." The word is both singular and plural in the Māori language, and is typically pluralised as such in English.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robin Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon</span> New Zealand judge (1926–2006)

Robin Brunskill Cooke, Baron Cooke of Thorndon, was a New Zealand judge and later a British Law Lord and member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He is widely considered one of New Zealand's most influential jurists, and is the only New Zealand judge to have sat in the House of Lords. He was a Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong from 1997 to 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sian Elias</span> New Zealand judge, and 12th Chief Justice of New Zealand

Dame Sian Seerpoohi Elias was the 12th chief justice of New Zealand, and was therefore the most senior member of the country's judiciary. She was the presiding judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand and on several occasions acted as administrator of the Government.

The New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy is a debate in the politics of New Zealand. It concerns the ownership of the country's foreshore and seabed, with many Māori groups claiming that Māori have a rightful claim to title. These claims are based around historical possession and the Treaty of Waitangi. On 18 November 2004, the New Zealand Parliament passed a law which deems the title to be held by the Crown. This law, the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, was enacted on 24 November 2004. Some sections of the act came into force on 17 January 2005. It was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Paul Gerrard McHugh is a New Zealand academic lawyer. He teaches at the University of Cambridge where he is a Professor in Law and Legal History and Fellow of Sidney Sussex College.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title</span> Concept in common law of indigenous land rights persisting after colonization

Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty to that land by another colonising state. The requirements of proof for the recognition of aboriginal title, the content of aboriginal title, the methods of extinguishing aboriginal title, and the availability of compensation in the case of extinguishment vary significantly by jurisdiction. Nearly all jurisdictions are in agreement that aboriginal title is inalienable, and that it may be held either individually or collectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand to "reform the laws relating to Māori land in accordance with the principles set out in the Preamble". These principles "reaffirm" the Treaty of Waitangi "relationship between the Māori people and the Crown" and "recognise that land is taonga tuku iho of special significance to Māori people". To that end, the principles "promote the retention of ... land in the hands of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu". Further, they "facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners, their whanau, and their hapu".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Māori Land Court</span> Specialized court of New Zealand

The Māori Land Court is the specialist court of record in New Zealand that hears matters relating to Māori land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004</span> Former New Zealand law

The Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 was an Act of Parliament in New Zealand which overruled the 2003 decision of the Court of Appeal in Ngati Apa v Attorney-General. Its passage arose out of, and further fueled, the New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy. The act was repealed and replaced by the Marine and Coastal Area Act in 2011.

Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington was an 1877 Supreme Court case on the status of native title to land in New Zealand. The court held that native title—ownership of land by Māori prior to 1840—could not be addressed by the municipal courts. The ruling itself explicitly set precedent for ignoring the Treaty of Waitangi, regarding it a "simple nullity" for domestic law. A landmark ruling, Wi Parata would allow for Crown grants to alienate Māori from their land in the following decades.

The Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 is an Act of the New Zealand Parliament created to replace the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004. It was brought in by the fifth National government and creates a sui generis property class for the marine and coastal area, in which it is vested in no one. This is in contrast to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 in which the foreshore and seabed were vested in the Crown.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Tipping</span> New Zealand judge

Sir Andrew Patrick Charles Tipping is a New Zealand jurist who served as a Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand from 2004 until his retirement in 2012. He is New Zealand's longest-serving judge, serving on the bench for 25 years. Tipping was also a member of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom. His tenure as a jurist has been widely acclaimed and his contributions to the shaping of New Zealand law are considered to be substantial and permanent.

<i>New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General</i>

New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, also known as the "Lands" case or "SOE" case, was a seminal New Zealand legal decision marking the beginning of the common law development of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure is well-recognised by the international human rights community. Section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 incorporates this right into New Zealand law, stating that: "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence or otherwise."

<i>Paki v Attorney-General</i> (No 2) New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Paki v Attorney-General was a case in the Supreme Court of New Zealand that considered whether “usque ad medium filum aquae”, the common law presumption that the purchaser of land adjoining a stream or river also obtains ownership of the waterway to its mid-point applied to the Waikato riverbed adjoining blocks of land at Pouakani, near Mangakino. For differing reasons the Supreme Court unanimously held that the "mid-point presumption" did not apply and "decided that it had not been shown that title determination to the Pouakani land blocks had affected ownership of the riverbed".

<i>R v Symonds</i>

R v Symonds(The Queen v Symonds) was an 1847 New Zealand Supreme Court case that incorporated the concept of aboriginal title into New Zealand law and upheld the government's pre-emptive right of purchase to Māori land deriving from the common law and expressed in the Treaty of Waitangi.

<i>In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach</i>

In Re the Ninety-Mile Beach was a decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand holding that Maori could not hold title to the foreshore because of the effect of section 147 of the Harbours Act 1878 ; and because investigation of title to land adjacent to the sea by the Māori Land Court had extinguished rights to land below the high water mark. The decision was overturned in 2003 by Ngati Apa v Attorney-General.

Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō is a Māori iwi (tribe) in the upper South Island of New Zealand. Its rohe include the areas around Golden Bay, Tākaka, Tasman Bay / Te Tai-o-Aorere, Motueka, Nelson and Saint Arnaud, including Taitapu and Kawatiri River catchments and Lakes Rotoiti, Rotoroa, and the Tophouse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Heta Hingston</span> New Zealand lawyer and jurist (1938–2020)

Heta Kenneth Hingston was a New Zealand lawyer and jurist. He served as a judge of the Māori Land Court from 1984 to 1999, as Chief Justice of the High Court of Niue from 1978 until 2010, and as a judge of the High Court of the Cook Islands and the Cook Islands Court of Appeal between 2000 and 2013.

References

  1. ↑ Hickford, Mark (27 January 2015). "Law of the foreshore and seabed - Challenge and controversy". Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
  2. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [13].
  3. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [127]-[128].
  4. ↑ Fiorletta-Leroy, S (2006). "The Attorney-General v Ngati Apa ("Ngati Apa or Marlborough Sounds") Case" (PDF). New Zealand Post-Graduate Law Journal. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
  5. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [49].
  6. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [50]-[53].
  7. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [55].
  8. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [59]-[76].
  9. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [4].
  10. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [89].
  11. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [121].
  12. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [121].
  13. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [143].
  14. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [135].
  15. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [157].
  16. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [162].
  17. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [215]-[216].
  18. ↑ Ngati Apa v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 643 at [207]-[208].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.