Collis v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2024] NZHC 3841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-818

[2024] NZHC 3841

BETWEEN

GLENN MARK COLLIS

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	G M Collis self-represented
Judgment:	13 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1]    Glenn  Mark  Collis  is  a  sentenced  prisoner  at  Whanganui  Prison.  On   11 December 2024, Mr Collis emailed documents to the Wellington Registry including a letter addressed to the Criminal Caseflow Manager stating:

Due to the serious matters that I have brought up I now believe this may be a live case of Habeas Corpus and require these matter [sic] to be looked at under urgency and a responce [sic] without delay.

[2]    No actual application for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed. However, I treat Mr Collis’s documents as a challenge to the legality of his detention and I will consider it under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.

[3]    According to the Registry, Mr Collis originally asked the Whanganui District Court for another hearing of the criminal charges against him. When that Court declined to accept his documents for filing, Mr Collis filed documents in this Court.

COLLIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2024] NZHC 3841

[13 December 2024]

[4]    The materials supplied by Mr Collis to the District Court include charging documents recording charges of aggravated assault on a constable (x 2) and resisting arrest, a summary of facts, a question trail dated 18 June 2024, and the sentencing notes of Judge Marinovich dated 14 October 2024.1

[5]According to the sentencing notes:

(a)Mr Collis was convicted by a jury on 18 June 2024 on the three charges.

(b)Judge Marinovich sentenced Mr Collis to 8 months and two weeks’ imprisonment in respect of the aggravated assaults on a constable with a concurrent term of imprisonment of one month for the resisting arrest charge.

[6]    The Judge’s sentencing notes also record that, at sentencing, Mr Collis refused to enter the dock and, in line with his sovereign citizen beliefs, tried to provide some documentation as to the lawfulness of the District Court. The sentencing notes also refer to Mr Collis’s contention that Department of Corrections is a liquidated company.

[7]    Also included in Mr Collis’s documents is a warrant of commitment for sentence of imprisonment dated 14 October 2024 which records that the police are directed to deliver Mr Collis to the manager of Whanganui Prison who is directed to receive Mr Collis into their control and to detain him for the purposes of the sentence.

[8]    It is difficult to discern from Mr Collis’s documents any basis for a legitimate challenge to the lawfulness of his detention.

[9]    Rather, the bulk of his documentation conforms with the “Sovereign citizen” model that is well known to the Court. These documents include a:

(a)“certification of living will and testement [sic] of His Royal Highness King Glenn-Mark” of the “Mauri-Nation-State of Nu-Tireni”; and

1      R v Collis [2024] NZDC 25138.

(b)“notice of understanding and intent and claim of right” dated 6 August 2014 in the name of “His Royal Highness King Glenn Sovereign of the House of Collis” addressed to various named public officials and which together with other associated documents (as best as I can understand) declares Mr Collis’s intent to dissociate himself from his “legal persona” so as to remove himself from the jurisdiction of the courts.

(c)What appears to be a trust deed for the TMPhoenix Collis Trust©.

[10]Section 14(1A) of the Habeas Corpus Act provides:

14       Determination of applications

…

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

…

(b) an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[11]   Having reviewed the documents filed by Mr Collis, I conclude they do not raise any matter to which a writ of habeas corpus could respond. An application for an issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering this matter where no allegations are made by Mr Collis going to the lawfulness of his detention at Whanganui Prison. I have concluded that this case does not require a hearing, following the approach discussed in Che v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.2

[12]   In Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections the Court of Appeal confirmed that:3

2      Che v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 11 at [6]–[8] and Teikamata v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZHC 3454. The applicants in these cases were also a sovereign citizen detained under a lawful warrant.

3      Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [10] and [11] (footnotes omitted).

(a)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. The courts have consistently rejected such arguments as legally untenable.

(b)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. The Crimes Act 1961 is one such Act of Parliament. The courts have the power to deal with all actions that may amount to criminal offences in this country. 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.

[13]   The arguments advanced by Mr Collis are untenable and without legal foundation. Mr Collis could have appealed his conviction and/or sentence.4 I cannot discern any arguments in his documents that suggest any viable appeal grounds. In any event, habeas corpus is not the appropriate means to make arguments that can otherwise be made on appeal.

[14]   In conclusion, I am satisfied that the warrant to detain provided by Mr Collis as part of his materials demonstrate a lawful basis for Mr Collis’s detention. He has not advanced any arguments to justify this Court concluding his detention is unlawful. Accordingly, Mr Collis’s application is dismissed on the papers.

McHerron J

4      See Teikamata, above n 2, at [6] and [7].