It's all in his sentencing judgment: The 9 mm Glock pistol is a lethal weapon. Mr Warren knew that. He was unfamiliar with it and the evidence I heard is to the effect that at 35 metres, actually hitting Sergeant Marsh was problematic for a novice shooter. But the jury found Mr Warren shot at Sergeant Marsh intending to kill him.
So what makes him of interest? His comments during trial. These are only the ones at his sentencing hearing, he was apparently very disruptive at trial.
And he had a MacKenzie friend rather than an actual lawyer. Probably because a real lawyer wouldn't have argued that the New Zealand government had no jurisdiction in New Zealand because Maori law took precedence;Mr Warren: Sir, I rebut the assumption that I am Mr Warren. I am not Mr Warren.
. . . . . . .
Mr Warren: Let the record show that one does not accept this Court’s jurisdiction. Sir, no disrespect, but I challenge your jurisdiction because I am a beneficiary of Maori incorporation, Rangatira Maori.
. . . . . . .
Mr Warren: Sir, I object. I don’t accept this Court’s jurisdiction.
Bench: Mr Warren, your choices at this time, if you want to hear the rest of the sentence, is to listen to what I have to say or you can go downstairs now. Which do you choose?
Mr Warren: Well, to my knowledge you have no jurisdiction. Bench: Yes, that is your knowledge. Which choice do you make?
Mr Warren: Let the record show I will appeal this to a higher court. I withdraw from this hearing accordingly.
[Mr Warren leaves the courtroom]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9 ... y-verdictsSpeaking after the verdicts, Warren's friend Jesse Church, who acted as a "Mackenzie friend" adviser to him throughout the trial, declared the court process invalid.
The courts of New Zealand lacked a lawful constitution and therefore the processes that happened within their walls were inadmissable, he said.
"Tikanga Maori is the true law ..."
Jurisdiction? Identification? We've heard all that before. So what about his interjection that he is a Rangatiri (actually Rangatira) Maori? These are hereditary tribal leaders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RangatiraRangatira ([ɾaŋatiɾa]) are the hereditary Māori leaders of hapū, and were described by ethnologists such as Elsdon Best as chieftains (p. 88). Ideally, rangatira were people of great practical wisdom who held authority on behalf of the tribe and maintained boundaries between a tribe's land and that of other tribes. Changes to land ownership laws in the 19th century, particularly the individualisation of land title, undermined the position of rangatira, as did the widespread loss of land under the colonial government.
However nothing came up at trial or in the news releases that I saw indicating he had any leadership status amongst the Maori. And Quatloos has run across self-proclaimed Maori chiefs before;
Warren also said that he was a beneficiary of Maori incorporation. This actually exists but deals with land management, not with the status of the Maoris in respect to non-Maori courts;
https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/whakamahia/e ... rporation/
https://www.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/your ... rporation/
There is a Maori Land Court associated with all of this but it is trictly to deal with issues regarding Maori-held land;
https://www.maorilandcourt.govt.nz/about-mlc/We are a court of record. Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (our Act) recognises the significance of Māori land as a taonga tuku iho of special significance to the Māori people. Our role is to provide a court service for owners of Māori land, their whānau and their hapū which:
· promotes the retention and use of Māori land
· facilitates the occupation, development and use of that land.
I'm assuming that this is the court that Warren was claiming had jurisdiction over him.
In the end the judge of the non-jurisdictional court considered, but rejected, giving Warren a sentence with a finite term;
The judge noted that this was the third time that Warren had been convicted of serious assault. One of the prior occasions was also an attack on a police officer; - What all that means is that if I were to sentence Mr Warren to a finite sentence of imprisonment, it would be 19 years with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. But I have to put that to one side now and go on to consider the issue of preventive detention.
The judge then noted two psychiatric reports on Warren that painted a very bleak picture of the very high probability of further violence on his part. Along with his belief that the court had no jurisdiction over him;You then perceived you would be arrested for breaching your bail and you have attacked the senior Constable in quite a savage way, punching him about the head and biting him in the shoulder. Photographs which are before me show the extent of that injury, which you now regret, to your credit.
So the judge imposed the same ten year minimum sentence of the years he would have imposed with a finite sentence but also left open the door for Warren to be in the slammer much, much longer. To Dr Halliday he explained that he does not believe the New Zealand Crown has a mandate to govern Maori and that Maori have not ceded sovereignty. He explained his belief that the New Zealand Crown does not have a constitution, has no legal right to govern Mr Warren and that he is being illegally detained. Mr Warren said he believes the Police and Justice Department are a private company registered in the United States and that they are conspiring against him.
 Dr Halliday was left with the impression that Mr Warren’s presentation and discussion indicates some paranoid thinking and conspiracy ideation. Having seen Mr Warren give evidence, and having listened to him today, I agree.
 Dr Halliday notes that the current offending occurred within two years of Mr Warren’s release from prison in 2014 for his previous offending. Dr Halliday said that reports from prison staff across four sites are consistent. Mr Warren is said to be aggressive, non-compliant, abusive, paranoid and self-entitled. He has incurred at least 16 misconducts since he was remanded in custody on the current charges in March 2016. These have been for varying behaviours including fighting with another inmate, smoking cigarettes, challenging staff to fight, misuse of the intercom system, disobeying lawful orders, threatening behaviour towards staff, sparring, having unauthorised medication and breaking observation windows. Of concern is the high number of incidents recording Mr Warren as threatening, abusive, swearing and being aggressive towards custodial staff.
 Dr Halliday notes that Mr Warren attended a three month Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme (MIRP) in 2011. Although the programme facilitator’s report suggests he gained some insight into his offending behaviour and evidenced some behavioural change, this does not seem to have lasted. Dr Halliday does not consider this programme to be of sufficient intensity nor suitable to manage Mr Warren’s risk of further violent offending. He would need a prolonged period of individual therapy working on interpersonal skills, communication and emotion management prior to being ready to address other offending needs, and even then Dr Halliday does not consider Mr Warren’s prognosis to be good. He said:
30 ... Individuals with profiles similar to Mr Warren do not do well in therapy. Mistrust and suspiciousness will be high and hostile attributional bias and conspiracy theories will be evident. Should Mr Warren feel significantly threatened or disempowered during therapy the likelihood of aggressiveness is high...
 Dr Halliday accepts that his formulation of Mr Warren is tentative as it relies on file information only. However, this is what he says:
34 Mr Warren has previously described a relatively uneventful childhood. It appears that in his early adolescence he gravitated towards an antisocial peer group resulting in his exit from school and the beginning of antisocial behaviour. In his late adolescence he engaged in crime and substance use, both likely used to manage emotions and boredom.
35 It appears that at some stage Mr Warren learned to have an anti- establishment or activist view towards the New Zealand government. More importantly he has developed beliefs challenging the legitimacy and sovereignty of the New Zealand governing bodies and disregards their authority. His political beliefs appear to have strengthened over time to include those who work for the public sector; those who might challenge what he views as his indigenous rights or those who attempt to control his behaviour. Mr Warren believes he is justified in using a high level of force and violence to redress the balance of control and maintain his rights. In addition, his tendency to be non-trusting and have a hostile attributional view exasperates the situation to where ambiguous stimulus may be viewed as threatening.
36 Mr Warren appears to hold the core belief of “I will do what I want” and becomes aggressive when his autonomy is challenged. His belief system legitimises the use of violence through his anti-European, anti-system stance. However, his behaviour does not appear to adhere to values ascribed through Te Ao Maori; it is possible Mr Warren believes he is a sovereign entity.
37 With regard to the index offence Mr Warren perceived himself as a target of injustice by the Police who he believes are agents of an illegitimate governing system and conspiring against him. His political beliefs coupled with his beliefs about violence, autonomy and general anti-sociality allowed him to react with extreme violence in order to protect his property and perceived rights.
 In his summary of risk and risk management, Dr Halliday says:
43 In summary, based on static and dynamic risk factors as well as structured professional judgement, Mr Warren is considered to be at moderate risk of general offending, and at least a high risk and more likely a very high risk of further violent offending.
 In his case, I think a sentence of preventive detention would be the best incentive for him to engage successfully in treatment. He could “tough out” a finite sentence and emerge even more entrenched in his views than he is already. But a sentence of preventive detention means that he will only be released once the Parole Board decides that he has changed sufficiently to make it safe to release him. Knowing that, and over time, Mr Warren could come to consider the possibility of reform.
 I am also required to impose a minimum period of imprisonment when I sentence Mr Warren to preventive detention. I determined the minimum period of imprisonment under a finite sentence in his situation to be 10 years’ imprisonment. I believe that 10 years’ imprisonment is the appropriate minimum period required for the purpose of safety of the community in the light of his age and the risk posed by him at the present time.