Maui Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 42/2022
[2022] NZSC 75

BETWEEN	MAUI WARAHI Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn for Respondent
Judgment:	17 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Maui Warahi, who goes also by the names Jay Maui Wallace and “Lawful Suveran being Maui Copyright Tangata‑Whenua”, seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal against the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus by Brewer J.[1] He is currently on remand on charges of contravening a protection order, common assault, threatening to kill and injuring with intent to injure.
[1]Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 (Goddard, Katz and Edwards JJ) [CA judgment]; and Warahi v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 3059.
Underlying the application is a challenge to the enforceability of the statutes under which the charges are brought against Mr Warahi as tangata whenua. Such challenges have been rejected previously by this Court.[2] Nothing filed in support addresses what alone ought to be in issue, namely whether Mr Warahi is or may have been unlawfully detained.[3] It follows there is no basis to impeach the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal,[4] that the warrants produced by the respondent demonstrate a lawful basis for detention.
[2]Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20.
[3]Habeas Corpus Act 2001, ss 6 and 14.
[4]CA judgment, above n 1, at [12].
The proposed appeal does not raise any issue of general or public importance, nor is there any indication that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred in refusing habeas corpus.[5] It is not in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.

Result

[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal from Maui Warahi against the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Warahi, also known as Jay Maui Wallace and "Lawful Suveran being Maui Copyright Tangata-Whenua", was on remand on charges including contravention of a protection order, common assault, threatening to kill, and injuring with intent. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Warahi's appeal against the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus by Brewer J. Warahi sought to challenge the enforceability of the statutes under which he was charged, asserting his rights as tangata whenua. However, the court noted that Warahi did not address whether he was unlawfully detained, and previous challenges to the statutes had been rejected by the Court. The court found that the warrants produced by the respondent demonstrated a lawful basis for detention, and the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance or suggest a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The legal issues before the court were whether Warahi was unlawfully detained and whether there was any basis to impeach the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the warrants produced by the respondent demonstrated a lawful basis for detention. The court found that Warahi did not address the issue of whether he was unlawfully detained, and previous challenges to the statutes had been rejected. The court also noted that the proposed appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance or suggest a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The court found that Warahi's application for leave to appeal did not raise any issue of general or public importance or suggest a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the proposed appeal did not address whether Warahi was unlawfully detained and that previous challenges to the enforceability of the statutes had been rejected. The court found that the warrants produced by the respondent demonstrated a lawful basis for detention, and it was not in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established