Rangitaawa

[2013] NZHC 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2013-488-01 [2013] NZHC 4

BETWEEN  GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA Applicant

Hearing:         On the Papers

(Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Applicant in person Judgment: 9 January 2013

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 January 2013 at 4:00 pm

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

GC RANGITAAWA HC WHA CIV-2013-488-01 [9 January 2013]

[1]      On 9 January 2013, the Registrar of the Court in Whangarei received a document headed:

DECLARED INDEPENDANCE [SIC] 1835

TE WHANAU RANGITAAWA O AOTEAROA INCORPORATION

It was dated 26 December 2012 but apparently signed on 30 December 2012 and was in the form of a letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar of the Court and sent by surface mail. The letter reads:

Dear Sir

i/we rangatira graham rangitaawa make an application for HABEAS CORPUS subject to Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and 2001 in Article 39

Magna Carta: No man free shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined nor will we go send against

him except by the loreful judgement of his peers or by the lore of the land.

Please find enclosed a previous copy of application filed in the District Court Dargaville also a Statutory Declaration declaring my Native Title as Natural Man of Aotearoa also in reference, details of the legal name to the artificial person GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA CAPITALISE.   i/we inform you that rangatira graham rangitaawa is not the person required to appear upon the subject matters schedule under  adjournment  to  the Whangarei  High  Court  date  4  February

2013.

URGENT 3 day response is required upon recieving this application

Yours faithfully

Kind regards

Rangatira graham rangitaana

[2]      Along with the application was a statutory declaration, on a form issued by the Dargaville District Court, taken by a solicitor on 19 October 2012.   The declaration reads:

I (title) rangatira graham rangitaawa

Of (address) 155 Victoria Street dargaville Aotearoa

Occupation KAITIAKI  Date of Birth  28.10.1835

I do solemnly and sincerely declare that the above information

and  following  statements  to  be  true  and  correct.     Declare

‘INDEPENDANCE’ under the SOVEREIGNS ORDER of NIU
TIRENI AOTEROA that  ORDER  IS  HE WHAKAPUTANGA
1835.
TE TIRITI O WAITANGI 1840
NEW ZEALAND CONSTITUTION ACT 1846
NATIVE DISTRICTS REGULATIONS ACT 1858
NATIVE CIRCUIT COURT ACT 1858
TE TURE WHENUA ACT 1993 AND 1994

NATIVE TITLE ACT 2003 IN ORDER AND  Declare CONTRA PROFORRENTUM, Maori text prevails over all other text AND Declare Privacy Act 1993 the provisions of the act.  signs rgr Solemn Declaration

I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.

Signature rangatira graham rangitaawa.

Declared at Dargaville District Court this 19 day of October 2012. CJ Edward

Solicitor Whangarei District Court

[3]      It appears the document may have been filed at Dargaville on 15 November

2012, together with other documents which are largely incomprehensible but which confirm that, despite assertions to the contrary in the letter received by the High Court today, the person signing himself as “rangatira. graham rangitaawa” is Graham Colin Rangitaawa.

[4]      Although the document filed in this Court purports to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus, it is fundamentally defective in that it does not assert that the applicant is unlawfully detained or by whom.   On that basis, the Registrar would have been entitled to reject the document.

[5]      Applications for writs of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 should not be thwarted on technical procedural grounds, as is clear from the fact that

the Court may consider an oral application[1] and that no applicant may be disqualified for lack of capacity or standing.[2]   Further, there is no prescribed form for the making of an application under the Act.[3]   An application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Act is to be given precedence over all other matters before the High Court.[4]

[1] Habeas Corpus Act 2001 s 7(2).

[2] Ibid s 7(4).

[3] Ibid s 7(7).

[4] Ibid s 9.

[6]      There being no resident judge in Whangarei and the purported application having been received during the Court’s vacation, the matter was referred to me as Duty Judge.  The member of the Registry staff dealing with the matter has informed me that information on the files of this Court and the District Court indicate that Mr Rangitaawa was sentenced by Judge de Ridder in the District Court at Dargaville on 9 December 2012 to 9 months imprisonment for refusing to provide a specimen of blood, that being his third offence of its kind.  Mr Rangitaawa has appealed that conviction and the appeal is to be heard in this Court, in Whangarei, on 5 February

2013.

[7]      I am informed also that Mr Rangitaawa has applied for bail pending the outcome of that appeal and that application is to be heard by a District Court Judge on  14  January 2013.    The Court  files indicate  also  that  Mr Rangitaawa is  also remanded in custody on charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill and that those matters are the subject of a callover on

14 February 2013.

[8]      I have received from the Registry staff in Whangarei a copy of a warrant of commitment related to the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed in the Dargaville District Court on 12 December 2012.  It appears to be in order and has been  duly  signed  by  the  District  Court  Judge.    I  am  satisfied  therefore,  that Mr Rangitaawa is detained in prison  and that  he would be entitled to  make an application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Act.  I propose to treat the letter

received by the Registrar as such an application.

[9]      Section 14(2) of the Act requires me to “enquire into the matters of fact and law” which might justify Mr Rangitaawa’s detention.   Section 14(2)(a) of the Act provides, however, that the Judge hearing an application for a writ of habeas corpus is  not  entitled  to  call  into  question  a  conviction  of  an  offence  by  a  Court  of competent jurisdiction.   I am satisfied that the applicant is lawfully detained after having been sentenced  to imprisonment and also after having been refused bail pursuant to his arrest on serious charges for which he is also before the Court.

[10]     In the circumstances, the application is refused.

.......................................

Toogood J