Delamare v Attorney-General

[2022] NZCA 272

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA205/2022
 [2022] NZCA 272

BETWEEN	BEAUXDINE PETER DELAMARE Appellant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2022
Court:	Gilbert, Mander and Fitzgerald JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person J B Watson and T Li for Respondent
Judgment:	28 June 2022 at 9.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Fitzgerald J)

1. On 9 August 2021, Mr Delamare was sentenced by Judge Crayton in the District Court to three years and five months’ imprisonment.[1] 

   [1]R v Delamare [2021] NZDC 16098. 

2. In early April 2022, Mr Delamare applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus.  The grounds upon which he did so are not entirely clear but boil down to the proposition that the laws of New Zealand do not apply to him.  Mr Delamare also raised concerns about whether he had had sufficient resources available to him in custody to adequately defend his case, that unlawful judicial decisions were made at his trial, and that certain international treaties were breached in the course of his engagement in the criminal justice process.  He also said that he had been treated in an unlawful manner by the police and that there was a “breach of contract” on the part of the Judge. 

3. In a judgment delivered on 5 April 2022, Gendall J dismissed Mr Delamare’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.[2]  The Judge found that Mr Delamare was lawfully detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the District Court Judge, and that none of the matters raised by Mr Delamare undermined the lawfulness of that warrant.[3] 

   [2]Delamere v Attorney General [2022] NZHC 699 [High Court judgment].

   [3]At [9] and [15].

4. Mr Delamare appeals against Gendall J’s judgment. 

The appeal

1. Mr Delamare’s submissions on appeal were somewhat difficult to discern.  We have, however, drawn the following from his written submissions:

   (a)Mr Delamare relies on what he refers to as the “universal sovereign laws of Ihowa”, which are above all human laws, including “crown or Queen laws”;

   (b)the “New Zealand Company” broke these laws by trespassing on ancestral land, which is a sin;

   (c)New Zealand is accordingly “unrighteous”; and

   (d)by reference to certain biblical extracts, the fact of unrighteousness, coupled with the universal sovereign laws of Ihowa, means that “New Zealand” has no jurisdiction over Mr Delamare. 

2. In his oral submissions, Mr Delamare explained that he was utilising his application for a writ of habeas corpus to “restore his physical being”, given he had been “left as a dead body” (demonstrated by, for example, his name being recorded in capitals in various court documents).  Mr Delamare further submitted that there are two jurisdictions within New Zealand, one of the Crown and one of the tangata whenua, and given Mr Delamare is belonging to and of the land, he is not part of the citizenship that is subject to the Crown’s jurisdiction. 

Discussion

1. The onus is on the Attorney-General to establish that Mr Delamare’s detention is lawful.  If the detention is not lawful, the Court must order Mr Delamare’s release.[4]  In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison, this Court held that once a prison superintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant, the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must demonstrate that the warrant does not in fact provide a lawful justification in the circumstances.[5]

   [4]Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).

   [5]Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].

2. The Attorney-General produced the relevant warrant at the hearing before the High Court.  Mr Delamare is currently detained pursuant to a warrant issued by Judge Crayton on 9 August 2021 under s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.  His statutory release date is 29 April 2023.  As the Judge found, the warrant demonstrates a lawful basis for Mr Delamare’s detention.[6] 

   [6]High Court judgment, above n 2, at [9].

3. Mr Delamare does not, directly at least, challenge the lawfulness of the warrant.  We agree with the Judge’s conclusion that none of the matters raised by Mr Delamare means that the warrant is unlawful. 

4. To the extent Mr Delamare’s application relies on grievances arising from the colonisation of New Zealand, and thereby a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have rejected such arguments.[7]  As this Court recently explained:[8]

   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.

   [7]See for example Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 at [7].

   [8]Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [11].

5. Mr Delamare is accordingly subject to the laws of New Zealand, including those which justify his current detention. 

6. As to those other matters raised by Mr Delamare, they did not feature to any particular extent in his written or oral submissions on appeal.  The Judge was, however, plainly correct when he concluded that matters such as alleged police impropriety, difficulties for Mr Delamare in preparing his case and alleged unlawful decisions made at his trial are not appropriately ventilated through an application for a writ of habeas corpus.[9] 

   [9]High Court judgment, above n 2, at [11], [12] and [14].

7. In short, the arguments advanced by Mr Delamare, insofar as we can discern them, are untenable. 

8. As Mr Delamare is presently detained in custody pursuant to a lawful warrant to detain, the Judge was correct to dismiss his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Result

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent