Mulitalo v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
[2025] NZCA 363
•25 July 2025 at 3 pm
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA278/2025 |
| BETWEEN | VAIOLA IOANE MULITALO AND WIKITORIA POMARE |
| AND | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS |
| Hearing: | 22 July 2025 |
Court: | Mallon, Powell and Cull JJ |
Counsel: | Appellants in person |
Judgment: | 25 July 2025 at 3 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Mallon J)
The appellant, Miss Pomare,[1] brings this appeal from the High Court dismissal of her habeas corpus application made in respect of Vaiola Ioane Mulitalo’s detention at Manawatū prison.[2] Mr Mulitalo appeared via virtual meeting room (commonly referred to as VMR). He confirmed he understood Miss Pomare was bringing the appeal to seek his release from custody and did not wish to add to her submissions.[3]
[1]In advance of the hearing Miss Pomare was advised that she could not represent Mr Mulitalo as his counsel because she did not appear to be enrolled as a barrister and solicitor with a current practising certificate issued on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society. Miss Pomare was further advised that she could conduct the appeal in her personal capacity, representing herself in seeking Mr Mulitalo’s release. This was because under s 7(4) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 the ordinary rules of capacity or standing do not apply to applications for writ of habeas corpus. We advised that the Court would proceed on this basis. Miss Pomare confirmed at the start of the hearing that she was acting personally seeking Mr Mulitalo’s release.
[2]Mulitalo v Department of Corrections [2025] NZHC 894.
[3]Miss Pomare attended the hearing with Mr G G Tortise. We did not call upon Mr Tortise to address us as we were not advised of his intention to address us or in what capacity he might do so. We have since received through the Registry an email advising that he wished to address us on tikanga. We infer that this was to support Miss Pomare’s reliance on tikanga. However, given the basis on which Miss Pomare was seeking Mr Mulitalo’s release, an elaboration on tikanga could not have assisted.
At the time of the High Court decision Mr Mulitalo faced several active charges and had pleaded guilty to other charges. He was remanded in custody until a case review scheduled for 7 July 2025 following an unsuccessful application in the District Court on 9 April 2025 for electronically monitored bail. The High Court reviewed the warrant of detention dated 9 April 2025 and concluded Mr Mulitalo’s detention was lawful. The Judge also concluded that that sovereignty matters raised on the application for a writ of habeas corpus made on his behalf were untenable.
Mr Mulitalo is currently detained pursuant to two warrants of detention dated 7 July 2025. One of those warrants detains Mr Mulitalo until 28 August 2025 for sentencing on driving offences under the Land Transport Act 1998, forgery offending under the Crimes Act 1961 and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition under the Arms Act 1983. The other warrant detains Mr Mulitalo until 9 September 2025 for sentencing on a charge of burglary under the Crimes Act 1961. Each warrant is signed by the District Court Judge who made order to remand Mr Mulitalo in custody.
Miss Pomare says that Mr Mulitalo is a member of a sovereign people whose authority remains in full force under He Wakaputunga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni | Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand (1835). She says this authority has never been ceded, extinguished, or superseded. She says there is no evidence to support the superiority of the warrants of committal over this authority. She cites a range of statutory provisions as well as tikanga in support of her submissions.
Miss Pomare submits that no purpose is served by Mr Mulitalo’s further incarceration. Hapū have their own ways of taking responsibility for their own. Mr Mulitalo is separated from his children by his incarceration. He has attended a six‑week course of rehabilitation and has been accepted for a course on “the highly auspicious Matarua Nationals” this weekend. His release would enable him to attend this so he can be his “best self” for his children. His hapū will take responsibility for achieving a better outcome than through the Court process.
Miss Pomare impressed us as sincere in her beliefs and the position she advanced. We have read the documents she has filed and have listened to what she has said. However, as the Senior Courts have said in other cases, arguments to the courts that a person is not subject to the laws made under the authority of the New Zealand Parliament cannot succeed.[4] The Senior Courts Act 2016 provides for and continues this Court’s jurisdiction and does not affect New Zealand’s continuing commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament.[5] At the time of the High Court decision Mr Mulitalo was detained pursuant to a lawful warrant issued under s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. He remains detained pursuant to lawful warrants issued under s 168(4) of that Act.
[4]See, for example, Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 at [7]; Morunga v Police [2016] NZCA 599 at [9]; Yates v R [2019] NZCA 155 at [9]; Te Moni v Police [2020] NZCA 452 at [8]; and Ferri v Police [2018] NZCA 181 at [8].
[5]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 3(2).
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Solicitors:
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
0
6
0