Morehu v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2018] NZHC 339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-488-000018

[2018] NZHC 339

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU (ALSO KNOWN AS PERRY WAKENUIROA OF THE WHANAU MOREHU)

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:

7 March 2018

Appearances:

The applicant in person

M B Smith for Respondent

Judgment:

7 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie On 7 March 2018 at 1.00pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitors, Whangarei

Copy to:
P W Morehu

MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 339 [7 March 2018]

[1]                 On 6 March 2018, the Registrar of the Court at Whangarei received in the mail an application for a writ of habeas corpus from Mr Perry Wakenuiroa Morehu.

[2]                 The application is dated 22 February 2018. I do not know why it has been delayed in reaching the Court. It does not purport to be an originating application as required by the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, but I have treated it as being such application. I directed that it be served on the respondent – the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and on the Crown Law office.

[3]                 Mr Morehu is currently detained in the Northland Regional Corrections Facility. He attended by AVL – although he asserted that he is entitled to attend in person. The Chief Executive for the Department of Corrections and the Crown Law office were represented by Mr Smith. I am grateful to him for appearing at short notice.

[4]                 Mr Morehu’s written papers are not easy to follow. He has annexed to his application copies of notices he has served on the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Commissioner of Police, the Prison Director of the Northland Regional Corrections Facility and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. He claimed that he no longer goes by the name Morehu, and that he is now Perry Wakenuiroa of the whānau Morehu. As I understand it, Mr Morehu was essentially asserting a sovereignty-based argument. He asserts that he has withdrawn his consent to being governed, and that the laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him. He therefore argues that there is no longer any legal justification for his continued detention.

[5]                 Clearly these arguments are without merit. The Courts have consistently held that challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament, and the validity of acts of Parliament (whether in the context of Māori sovereignty arguments or any other challenge to the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament) cannot succeed.1

[6]                 Under s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, it is for the respondent to establish that the detention of an applicant is lawful.

1      See, eg Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].

[7]                 Mr Smith produced copies of the Warrants of Commitment for Mr Morehu. He was sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment by Judge Cunningham in the District Court at Auckland on 28 October 2015 for multiple offences. The Warrants were issued under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and they are signed by Judge Cunningham.

[8]                 There is clearly lawful authority for Mr Morehu’s continued detention. As a result, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

[9]                 I record that I have issued this judgment as a reserve judgment, as Mr Morehu would not stop talking, and allow me to issue an oral judgment. Rather, he made repeated demands for me to produce a “contract” between him and Court, and for me to produce my warrant. After repeated requests by me to keep quiet so that I could issue an oral judgment were ignored, I brought the hearing to a close, and advised that this reserve judgment would follow.

Wylie J