Kevin Moore began occupying land at the Rohutu Block in 2013. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin
A long-standing Black Power member's battle to stay on Māori land he has been illegally occupying in Taranaki appears over, and his removal imminent.
The Supreme Court has declined Kevin Moore's application to appeal his eviction from East Beach in Waitara.
The decision exhausts his legal avenues.
Rohutu Block Trust manages eight hectares of Māori freehold land at East Beach. There are about 30 houses on the property.
Moore, who was acquitted of the murder of a rival gang member in 1992, began occupying land there in 2013, claiming to whakapapa to the land even though his family name did not appear on a list of registered owners.
Residents claimed Moore was intimidating them and the Rohutu Block trustees - despite at one stage offering him a lease - eventually sought to trespass the gang member.
In 2016, the Māori Land Court granted an injection to evict Moore, who had subsequently built an unconsented home over looking the Tasman Sea, but his eviction was stayed so he could pursue an appeal through the courts.
Moore, who is in his 60s, appealed under a section of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 relating to the correction of errors and omissions in orders of the Māori Land Court or of the Registrar of that Court.
In a 2022 decision, Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court Wilson Isaac concluded there had been no mistake or omission in the 1958 partition order that was capable of correction under the Act.
Moore then sought a judicial review in the High Court which found "the real issue was what Mr Moore said was an error in the Crown grant and resolution of that issue was outside of the scope" of the Act.
He subsequently unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal.
In its decision, the Supreme Court laid out the background of the land in question.
The entrance to Kevin Moore's compound. Photo: RNZ / Robin Martin
"In 1958 the Māori Land Court made a partition order in relation to the Waitara East 81B Block. The relevant beneficiaries identified in the partition order were the descendants of most of the original Māori owners named in the original Crown grant.
"They did not include Mr Moore or his tipuna."
Moore's lawyer argued that his family had been omitted from the Crown Grant in 1884.
"That is because there was a mix-up by which an owners list annexed to a wrong Crown grant was provided to the Māori Land Court."
The Waitara East 81B Rohutu Trust was subsequently set up and legal ownership of the block vested its trustees.
"The Rohutu Trust since then has, until recently, leased sections to various leaseholders on behalf of the beneficiaries, some who whakapapa to the whenua and some who do not," court documents noted.
In Moore's proposed appeal to the Supreme Court, his lawyer argued the Act was not limited to correcting procedural errors and extended to errors based on the presentation of the facts to the court, and in any event the error he sought to correct was a procedural error.
"That is because there was a mix-up by which an owners list annexed to a wrong Crown grant was provided to the Māori Land Court."
The Supreme Court disagreed.
"The approach adopted by the Court of Appeal reflected a careful consideration of the text of section 44(1) [of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993] and its legislative context.
"Nothing raised by Mr Moore gives rise to the appearance of an error in the approach to the question of interpretation that was before the Court.
"In these circumstances, the criteria for leave to appeal are not met."
Moore also made an application for a stay of enforcement of the eviction injunction pending determination of the appeal.
"Given that the application for leave to appeal is unsuccessful, this application falls away," the Supreme Court decision said.
Moore was on legal aid, so no award for costs was made.
