Maui Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Case •

[2022] NZSC 75

•

17 June 2022

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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].

  3. 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).

  1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent


Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0