R v Symonds
| R v Symonds | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Auckland Supreme Court |
| Full case name | The Queen (on the prosecution of C H McIntosh) v J J Symonds |
| Decided | 9 June 1847 |
| Citation | (1847) NZPCC 388 |
| Transcript | Available here |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Martin CJ and Chapman J |
| Keywords | |
| Aboriginal title, Treaty of Waitangi | |
R v Symonds incorporated the concept of Aboriginal title into New Zealand law and upheld the Government's pre-emptive right of purchase to Maori land deriving from the Treaty of Waitangi. Although the Native Lands Act 1862 waived Crown pre-emption, the notion of Aboriginal title has been revived in the 20th century to deal with Maori property rights.
Background
Faced with a "virtually bankrupt colonial administration" Governor Robert FitzRoy had in 1843 waived the Crown's right of pre-emption to buy Māori land, allowing settlers to directly buy land from Maori if they held certificates waiving the Crown's right.[1] When Governor George Grey took office in 1845, he decided to take a test case to, "justify his refusal to award Crown grants over land to persons whose claims were based on those certificates."[1] The attorney general, William Swainson, appeared for Jermyn Symonds, and Thomas Bartley appeared for Charles Hunter McIntosh.[2] The case involved an island in the Firth of Thames that McIntosh had bought from Māori, which he claimed extinguished all title that the Crown had. The same island was then conveyed by Grey as a Crown grant to Symonds.[3]
As David Williams has noted, "The essential political issue at stake in the Gipps/Wentworth debates and in The Queen v Symonds related to the extent of Crown control over the profits to be made in the process of extinguishing Maori title and making land available to incoming settlers."[4]
Judgment
The judges of the Supreme Court asserted the "paramount importance of the Crown's pre-emptive monopoly right to purchase lands from Maori".[1]
In addition, Justice Chapman held,
"Whatever may be the opinion of jurists as to the strength or weakness of the Native title, whatsoever may have been the past vague notions of the Natives of their country, whatever may be their present clearer and still growing conception of their dominion over land, it cannot be too solemnly asserted that it is entitled to be respected, that it cannot be extinguished (at least in times of peace) otherwise than by the free consent of the native occupiers."[5]
References
- ^ a b c Willliams, David (2007). "Wi Parata is Dead, Long Live Wi Parata". Māori Property Rights and the Foreshore and Seabed: The Last Frontier. Wellington: Victoria University Press. p. 35.
- ^ "Supreme Court". New Zealander. Vol. 2, no. 101. 8 May 1847. p. 3. Retrieved 21 September 2015.
- ^ "Auckland". Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle. Vol. VI, no. 279. 10 July 1847. p. 71. Retrieved 21 September 2015.
- ^ Williams, David (1 November 1989). "The Queen v. Symonds reconsidered". Victoria University of Wellington Law Review. 19 (4).
{{cite journal}}:|access-date=requires|url=(help) - ^ R v Symonds (1847) NZPCC 388
| Parties and partners |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Notable signatories | ||
| Important figures and groups | ||
| Important groups | ||
| Terminology | ||
| Legal | ||
| Commemoration | ||
| Protest | ||