Moananui v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2024] NZHC 3254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-690

[2024] NZHC 3254

IN THE MATTER OF

an application pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

QUENTIN JOSEPH MOANANUI

First Applicant

MARIOTA SU’A
Second Applicant

JEREMIAH SU’A
Third Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHANGANUI PRISON

Second Respondent

Hearing:

4 November 2024 (via VMR)

Appearances:

Applicants in person

S B McCusker and M Gavey for Respondents

Judgment:

5 November 2024

JUDGMENT OF BOLDT J

[1]                  Quentin Moananui, along with his co-defendants Mariota and Jeremiah Su’a, are serving prisoners. After a jury trial which ended on 6 May 2021, the three of them were convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, manslaughter and participating in an organised criminal group. Mr Moananui was also convicted of two charges of kidnapping.

MOANANUI v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2024] NZHC 3254

[5 November 2024]

[2]                  On 9 July 2021, Cull J sentenced the applicants to lengthy terms of imprisonment. Mr Moananui is serving a sentence of 10 years and two months’ imprisonment. Mariota Su’a was sentenced to 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, and Jeremiah Su’a was sentenced to 13 years and two months’ imprisonment.

[3]                   The applicants apply for a writ of habeas corpus. They claim their detention is unlawful because they were not properly convicted. I set out the grounds of the application in full. The applicants say:

4.This Application and at this time is solely for the detention and the fact is;

(a)The Applicant was subject to a jury trial on a number of serious charges including Murder, GBH and Participation in a Group type charges.

(b)Only the jury is responsible for any outcomes of who is guilty and of who is not guilty.

(c)The trial Judge removed the power from the jury and made the Applicant guilty herself.

(d)It is a crime to mislead and the judge should not have been able to [interfere] with the outcomes of the jury’s verdicts therefore the detention is not lawful because it was not the [Judge’s] job to convict the Applicant, it is the jury’s job to do so.

[4]                  Mr  McCusker,  for  Corrections,  notes  this   is   the   fourth   application  Mr Moananui has made for habeas corpus. The first two were made before the trial which led to the sentence he is now serving — one arose from his remand in custody on an unrelated charge of driving while disqualified, while the other appears to have arisen  from  pre-trial  disclosure  complaints.  In  both  cases,  Gwyn J  observed   Mr Moananui was lawfully in custody pursuant to a warrant to detain. Justice Gwyn noted that habeas corpus was the wrong procedure to adopt in both cases.1

[5]                  The third application was brought in 2021, after Mr Moananui was convicted but before he was sentenced. That application concerned whether he could be

1      Moananui v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2948 at [12].

convicted of manslaughter, given he was originally charged with murder.

Justice Campbell dismissed that application as an abuse of process.2

[6]                   The present applications must also fail. Mr McCusker has produced warrants authorising the detention of all three applicants. They are detained because they are serving sentences of imprisonment. The fact the applicants are being held under valid warrants means the Crown has demonstrated the detention is lawful for the purposes of s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.

[7]                   The applicants seek habeas corpus because they believe a miscarriage of justice arose when they were convicted. But an application for habeas corpus tests the legality of an applicant’s detention, not the safety of any underlying conviction. The fact habeas corpus is not the correct procedure for considering the applicants’ allegations would have provided a separate basis for the applications to be dismissed.3

[8]                   All three applicants have either appealed against their convictions or are seeking leave to appeal out of time to do so. They advise they are waiting for a hearing date to be allocated, and tell me there may be some pre-appeal disclosure questions that need to be resolved. They are not sure when their appeal will be heard. They confirm they now understand that if they wish to argue that errors at trial led to their convictions they must do so as part of their forthcoming appeal.

[9]                   Unless and until the applicants’ convictions are overturned on appeal, their detention is lawful. Accordingly, all three applications for habeas corpus are dismissed.

Boldt J

Solicitors:

Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent

2      Moananui v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 1089.

3      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A).