Leslie v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2023] NZHC 1116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV 2023-488-39

[2023] NZHC 1116

UNDER

The Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

MARTIN ROBIN DION LESLIE

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

On the papers
Counsel:	The applicant in person
Judgment:	11 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 May 2023 at 10.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

LESLIE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 1116 [11 May 2023]

[1]        Mr Leslie has tendered for filing a document that is styled an application for  a writ of habeas corpus. The Registrar has referred the application to me under High Court Rule 5.35A.

[2]        Mr Leslie has named the Department of Corrections as the respondent. He refers to a warrant to detain himself. I assume, though Mr Leslie does not say so explicitly, that Mr Leslie is presently detained in prison.

[3]Mr Leslie begins his application by saying:

The legal name on the warrant to detain myself as the legal personality is     a misrepresentation under the law, having resigned from the Office of the Person.

[4]        Mr Leslie then says that the government enact statutes the terms and conditions of which “depend for their effect upon the consent of the governed”. He says that statutes are contracts and that the origin of all legal jurisdiction is consent. He says birth certificates are “a crown own copyright protected legal entity” and that “the legal name is not a living entity it is a legal entity, which requires representation by consent”. He says a particular (but unidentified) birth certificate (I assume the one issued in respect of his birth) “was a contract created without my consent”.

[5]Mr Leslie then gives the following notice:

Therefore be it now known to all concern and effected parties that, I Robin of the family Martin, do hereby state clearly and perceivically [sic] and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully withdraw my consent to be governed as a legal personality in society.

[6]        Mr Leslie concludes by claiming, among many things, “the right to immunity from statute law and exemption from taxation, and legal jurisdiction”.

[7]        The propositions put forward by Mr Leslie are all nonsensical.   His notice    is legally ineffective. He cannot claim the  right  to  immunity  from  statute  law.  Mr Leslie does not seek any relief in his application. For these reasons, the application is plainly an abuse of process. I strike out the application under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016.

[8]Mr Leslie has, under r 5.35B(3), the right to appeal against this decision.

[9]        I direct the Registrar to serve a copy of this decision on the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.

Campbell J