Moananui v Prime Minister

[2021] NZHC 1156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2021-485-186

[2021] NZHC 1156

BETWEEN

QUENTIN JOSEPH MOANANUI

Plaintiff

AND

PRIME MINISTER, ATTORNEY- GENERAL, SOLICITOR-GENERAL AND ORS

Defendants

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Plaintiff in person
Judgment:	21 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1]                 These proposed proceedings, which involve a claim for judicial review brought against the Prime Minister, Governor-General, Attorney-General and other parties by proposed statement of claim dated 10 May 2021, and an earlier proposed judicial claim of similar character by statement of claim dated 4 March 2021, have been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016.

[2]                 Mr Moananui is detained in prison. He has recently been convicted of manslaughter and other charges following a trial before Cull J and a jury. He is presently remanded in custody pending sentence. The proposed judicial review claims challenge the initial decision to charge Mr Moananui on the basis there was not sufficient evidence to support the charges before they were filed.

MOANANUI v PRIME MINISTER, ATTORNEY-GENERAL, SOLICITOR-GENERAL AND ORS [2021] NZHC 1156 [21 May 2021]

[3]                 Mr Moananui has previously brought habeas corpus applications both before and after his trial. Both were unsuccessful.1

[4]                 The power to strike out a proposed proceeding as an abuse of process under these rules is to be exercised sparingly.2 The following questions are to be asked when these rules are applied:3

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes for it to follow the applicant’s document to be treated as a proper document.

[5]                 As the Court of Appeal observed in Faloon v Planning Tribunal at Wellington access to the Courts is an important human right, but it is subject to “basic rules to maintain order”.4 The rule needs to be applied against that background.

[6]                 I have no hesitation in exercising the power to strike out the proceeding under r 5.35B in the present case. The proceeding involves a collateral attack on the outcome of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Moananui. Judicial review is not the appropriate vehicle for Mr Moananui to advance such challenges. If he wishes to contend that his conviction was wrong, or that he was never properly charged in the first place, he now has a right of appeal. It is not appropriate to advance a collateral attack on the criminal proceedings through bringing judicial review proceedings. In any event, given that Mr Moananui was convicted the claim that there was no proper basis to charge him appears hopeless. The high threshold for proceedings to be struck out under this Rule is met.

1      Moananui v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2948, Moananui v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 1089.

2      Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court [2019] NZHC 2345.

3      Mathieson v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258 at [4]–[7]; and Mathieson v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032 at [6].

4      Faloon v Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZCA 170 at [2].

[7]                 The proceedings are accordingly struck out as an abuse of process. Pursuant to r 5.35B I record that Mr Moananui has a right of appeal from this decision. For the purposes of r 5.35B(4) I direct that a copy of this judgment be provided to the Solicitor-General and the Crown Solicitor responsible for Mr Moananui’s prosecution.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitors, Wellington