Mulitalo v Department of Corrections

[2025] NZHC 894

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2025-454-39

[2025] NZHC 894

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

VAIOLA-IOANE MULITALO

Applicant

AND

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

V-I Mulitalo in person through his representative Vikki-Lee-Levi Pomare

K Laurenson and I M C A McGlone for Respondent

Judgment:

11 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1]    Mr Mulitalo is in custody at Manawatū Prison. Corrections records shows that he has 11 active charges. He has pleaded guilty to two charges of driving while disqualified,1 and to charges of driving in a dangerous manner,2 forgery3 and unlawful possession of a pistol.4

[2]    A Department of Corrections document which identifies the charges on which he is being held records that the most recent of them are charges for the offences of kidnapping (for gain), threatening to kill or to do grievous bodily harm (verbal) and

1      Land Transport Act 1998, ss 32(1)(a) and 32(4).

2      Section 35(1)(B).

3      Crimes Act 1961, s 256.

4      Arms Act 1983, s 50.

MULITALO v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2025] NZHC 894 [11 April 2025]

theft (under $500). Offence dates of 15 March 2025 are recorded for each of those charges.

[3]    In a warrant to detain signed and dated 9 April 2025 – produced by the respondent – Judge O’Driscoll remanded Mr Mulitalo in custody until his next appearance on 7 July 2025 in the Christchurch District Court (by AVL).

[4]    It appears from records that the respondent has made available that an application by Mr Mulitalo for electronically monitored bail was heard on 9 April 2025. As the warrant was issued on the same date, it can be taken that the application was declined.

[5]    On 7 April 2025, Vikki-Lee-Levi Pomare filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus on Mr Mulitalo’s behalf. In the application, Ms Pomare describes herself as “appointed as Native Hapū Counsel by the applicant”.5 The single ground for the application is expressed in the following way:

Seeking for proof of Claim of Jurisdiction and Authority for detainment?

[6]    The application is accompanied by an unsigned affidavit from Mr Mulitalo in which he describes himself as a “Sovereign National of The Māori Government” and in which he “lawfully asserts [his] inherent sovereign rights to freedom and self determination” which are said to be recognised within certain unnamed statutes “by the Kings, Lords and Commons of Great Britain, also concluded by The Waitangi Tribunal”. It is said, in addition, “Under the Magna Carta 1297 (s 29) No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned”.

[7]A number of documents are filed as exhibits to the affidavit:

(a)A copy of the Magna Carta.

(b)A copy of the 1835 Declaration of Independence – He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nū Tireni.

5      Ms Pomare’s authority for doing so is not clear but, as s 7(4) of the Habeas Corpus Act provides, no applicant may be disqualified for lack of capacity or standing.

(c)Extracts from 1817 and 1835 United Kingdom Acts of Parliament.

(d)A document described as “Correspondence with the secretary of state relative to NZ 1840 Memorandum”.

(e)Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

(f)Closing submissions on behalf of certain applicants, under Wai 1040 and Wai 966 in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Te Paparahi o Te Raki District Inquiry.

(g)A document described as a “deed of authority” in which Mr Mulitalo declares himself to be a sovereign individual with certain rights and being “not liable … in any external governmental legal proceeding”.

(h)A document called a “notice of understanding and intent and claim of right”, the terms of which are difficult to understand but which include a paragraph in which it is said “any unlawful detention by Mercantile Agents will incur the charge outlined in the attached “fee schedule”.” The document includes something that is referred to as Mr Mulitalo’s “sea-pass”.

[8]    Finally, a notice to admit facts has been filed for Mr Mulitalo in which the facts to which an admission is sought are expressed as follows:

No proof of claim of Jurisdiction and Authority over freeman and inherent Sovereign; :Vaiola-Ioane:Mulitalo:

[9]    There is nothing from Mr Mulitalo’s documents that would provide any basis for a legitimate challenge to the lawfulness of his detention under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. Rather, the documents he has filed challenge the application of New Zealand law to him. The documents conform with the “sovereign citizen” model that is well known to the Court.

[10]Section 14(1A) of the Habeas Corpus Act provides:

14       Determination of applications

…

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

…

(b)an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not   the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[11]   Having reviewed the documents filed by Mr Mulitalo, I conclude they do not raise any matter to which a writ of habeas corpus could respond. An application for an issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering this matter where no allegations are made by Mr Mulitalo going to the lawfulness of his detention. I have concluded that this case does not require a hearing, following the approach discussed in Che v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.6

[12]   In Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections the Court of Appeal confirmed that:7

(a)Arguments about a person’s legal personality, including the “dual persona” theory associated with the Sovereign Citizen movement, are not uncommonly raised in applications for habeas corpus. The courts have consistently rejected such arguments as legally untenable.

(b)Acts of Parliament, including criminal enactments, are binding on all persons within the geographic territory of New Zealand. The Courts of New Zealand must uphold all Acts of Parliament as enacted. The Crimes Act 1961 is one such Act of Parliament. The courts have the power to deal with all actions that may amount to criminal offences in this country. No person within New Zealand is able to dissociate themselves from their “legal persona” so as to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the courts.

6      Che v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 11 at [6]–[8] and Teikamata v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZHC 3454. The applicants in these cases were also a sovereign citizen detained under a lawful warrant.

7      Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [10] and [11] (footnotes omitted).

[13]   The arguments advanced for Mr Mulitalo are untenable and without legal foundation. Moreover, it is clear that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for  considering  any  allegations made by  Mr Mulitalo about his detention. Appropriate procedure includes the pursuit of bail applications and the defence of any charges that are disputed.

[14]   The warrant produced by the respondent demonstrates, in any event, a lawful basis for Mr Mulitalo’s detention. As Mr Mulitalo has not advanced any argument that could justify a conclusion on the part of the Court that his detention is unlawful, his application is dismissed on the papers.

Radich J

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent