Anderson aka Rangatira Carl v District Court at Wairoa

[2024] NZHC 1835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2024-441-44

[2024] NZHC 1835

BETWEEN

CARL VINCENT ANDERSON, also

referred to as Rangatira Carl: Tangatawhenua

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT WAIROA

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	8 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[1]        On 3 July 2024, a customary lore practitioner, who identifies herself as Georgina-o-te-whanau-Turanga, filed a “writ of habeas corpus” in the Napier Registry of this Court. The application concerns Rangatira Carl: Tangatawhenua, also known as Carl Vincent Anderson. The intituling on the application identifies him as “detained”. The application includes an affirmation appointing Georgina-o-te- whanau-Turanga as the applicant’s “Māori agent / advocate to litigate this matter”.

[2]       The application itself is difficult to follow. It contains numerous references to inapplicable provisions, such as Rule 5.51 of the District Court Rules 2014 (which governs appearances in District Court civil proceedings where the defendant objects to the jurisdiction of the Court).

ANDERSON v DISTRICT COURT AT WAIROA [2024] NZHC 1835 [8 July 2024]

[3]       As best I can discern, the applicant was arrested and appeared in the Wairoa District Court.1 The application indicates that he attempted to advise the Judge that he does not recognise the jurisdiction of the Court, but the Judge exercised jurisdiction over him nonetheless. The following paragraph gives a flavour:

[14] It is clearly obvious that legislation known as District Court Act 2014    s 5.51 (2). The filing and serving of an appearance does not operate as a submission to the jurisdiction of the court, is ignored by Judge Bolstad due to detaining the person CARL VINCENT ANDERSON in a captive jurisdiction  within  the  Legislation  Act  2019   s   16,   referred   to   as  MR ANDERSON legally defined as CORPORATE SOLE whilst forcing adjudication on Rangatira Carl.

[Capitalisation and emphasis in original]

[4]The application is signed “Allrightsreserved”.

[5]       Habeas corpus applications must be accorded urgency, and given precedence over all other matters before the High Court unless a Judge considers the circumstances otherwise require.2 That said, it is apparent that no issue of habeas corpus arises here. The Registry’s initial inquiries with Crown Law indicated that the applicant has been released on bail. At my direction, the Deputy Registrar contacted Georgina-o-te-whanau-Turanga, who confirmed the applicant is on bail, but that she regards bail as a form of detention.

[6]       The fact the applicant is on bail resolves the matter. By virtue of s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, a Judge dealing with a habeas corpus application may not call into question “a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction”. If the applicant wishes to challenge any aspect of his bail, including his bail conditions, the appropriate course is for him to appeal under s 42 of the Bail Act 2000.

[7]       The papers appear to indicate that the applicant’s real complaint is that he (or Georgina-o-te-whanau-Turanga on his behalf) does not consider that he is subject to the Court’s jurisdiction. In light of that, it may be worth noting the Court of Appeal’s remarks in Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections:3

1      Records supplied by the Department of Corrections show him to be on active charges of resisting Police and failing to provide his name and address.

2      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 9(1).

3      Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105.

[10]       Arguments about a person’s legal personality, including the “dual persona” theory associated with the Sovereign Citizen movement, are not uncommonly raised in applications for habeas corpus. They are also raised in a variety of other contexts. Arguments along such lines have been consistently rejected by the courts as legally untenable …

[11]       Acts of Parliament, including criminal enactments, are binding on all persons within the geographical territory of New Zealand. The Courts of New Zealand must uphold all Acts of Parliament as enacted. … No person within New Zealand is able to dissociate themselves from their “legal persona” so as to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the courts.

[8]       Given the applicant is on bail, it is apparent that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations the applicant makes.4 Accordingly, I refuse to issue the writ.

Boldt J

4      Habeas Corpus Act, s 14(1A)(b).