Part I is here.
In that introductory post, I said this part would probably be broken down in two subparts, and indeed that will be the case. This subpart will focus on the existence of tikanga into the common law of New Zealand prior to the Ellis decision. The second subpart will look at how radically the Ellis decision changed that.
To refresh, tikanga is described as:
I’m going to hold any comment on whether this should form part of our legal system until the final post in this series. For now, let’s look at how tikanga sat within our legal system prior to Ellis. A lot of this next information comes directly from the Supreme Court as opined in the decision. I have provided the decision (below) and readers can read from paragraphs [92] – [116]. It is relatively simple reading.
This will be sufficient for this subpart. I’ll see you all in subpart II.
No Minister 
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
The link provided doesn’t work, correct one is below
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/the-courts/supreme-court/judgments-supreme/?Search=&CaseNum=114&Year=2022&action_search=Search
Actually, thats the media release only
The common law of New Zealand is admirably enhanced by case law throughout the commonwealth. It would be exceptionally racist not to recognise and incorporate Maori common law into the justice system of New Zealand.
W&P I’ll consider that point when you show me authenticated records of maori common law written prior to New Zealand’s law being set as that adopted from England.
Prior to the industrial revolution most English were illiterate. English common law developed over centuries and local enforcement was mostly done orally. Britain was hundreds of years ahead of Maori in that respect but it does not invalidate Maori common law
There is no such thing as “maori common law”.
Maori people were living in a bunch of disparate tribes who’s only real communication was the search of food – mainly long pig; the only large land animal after the early maori destroyed the eco-system (mainly by fire) and killed all the big birds.
There was no “common”!
Nor, of course was there law.
What is now being claimed as such is in fact newly invented bullshit designed to promote apartheid and enrich a group of racists who consider themselves elite.
These racists are backed, of course, by brain-dead tossers.
As an aside literacy has nothing to do with it. Damned near every Northern Hemisphere country has written history of at least the last 1,000 years.
It is only since the invention of the printing press (nothing to do with the industrial revolution at the time) that literacy has become possible for the lower classes (peasantry if you will).
It would only be racist if Maori common law were shown to be either beneficial and/or superior to what we have now, and we rejected it because it was Maori.
W&P – can you explain what “Maori common law” is?
Nick, have a look at the Magna Carta again and realise how different much of it is from what we accept as Common Law principles today. I am unable to define what Maori Common Law is, but it strikes me as entirely reasonable that something of that nature exists. You could argue that could include things like slavery and cannibalism but in the same way things have changed since the Magna Carta, things have changed with Maori culture. https://www.nzcpr.com/tikanga-in-law-what-does-it-mean/ – I dont agree with this but an interesting discussion. How is Utu any different from criminal law based on “eye for an eye”
I think the key point of Magna Carta is that a bunch of nobles (tribal elders) came together to produce a written document telling the King of England that his writ had certain limitations on it – limitations imposed by them.
As such it’s a pretty primitive piece of constitutional law but it does establish some very basic things that eventually turn into more precise mechanisms like Parliaments and Bills of Rights. And the key point is that it was telling the “Tribal Leader” of England that he couldn’t do whatever he wanted. Sounds small now but that’s a big thing.
I don’t see anything like that in Maori history beyond speculation based on interpreted oral history that presents intra-tribal government as having similar limitations – which just don’t correspond to the actual history of how Chiefs acted and decided. I suggest you have a read of The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I:
Long I know but when you read the history of that development I’m damned if I can see anything in Maoridom that can even be compared, let alone matched.