Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2013] NZCA 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA46/2013
[2013] NZCA 2

BETWEEN  GRAHAM COLIN RANGITAAWA
Appellant

AND  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Respondent

Hearing:         4 February 2013 (By telephone)

Court:             O'Regan P, Ellen France and White JJ

Counsel:         Appellant in person
D J Perkins for Respondent

Judgment:      5 February 2013 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by O’Regan P)

1. The appellant appeals against the decision of Toogood J refusing a writ of habeas corpus.[1]

   [1]      Rangitaawa [2013] NZHC 4.

2. The appellant’s notice of appeal gives as the grounds of appeal that the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus was biased and unjust.  The High Court Judge treated the appellant’s application to the High Court as an application for habeas corpus even though it was defective in a number of respects, including a failure to claim unlawful detention.  Having been provided with a copy of a warrant signed by a District Court Judge, under which the appellant was imprisoned, Toogood J determined that the appellant was lawfully detained and dismissed the application.

3. The appellant continues to be detained at Northland Regional Corrections Facility.  He claims his detention is unlawful, though he acknowledges the existence of warrants directing that he be detained in prison.

4. Counsel for the respondent sought and was granted leave to adduce an affidavit from a solicitor employed by the Department of Corrections in which the solicitor deposed that the appellant was detained under the authority of two warrants issued by District Court judges and by a judgment refusing bail.  The relevant warrants and the judgment relating to bail were annexed to the affidavit.  Details are as follows:

   (a)The appellant was sentenced to a term of nine months’ imprisonment for refusing to supply a blood specimen (third offence).  After pleading guilty to that offence, he was imprisoned pursuant to a Warrant of Commitment for Sentence of Imprisonment signed by Judge de Ridder, a District Court Judge.  The appellant has appealed against conviction and sentence and that appeal is to be heard at the High Court at Whangarei on 5 February 2013.

   (b)The appellant applied for bail pending the hearing of his appeal and this was declined by Judge de Ridder in a judgment issued on 14 January 2013.[2]

   (c)The appellant also faces trial for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and threatening to kill or to do grievous bodily harm.  He was committed for trial on 17 December 2012 and was remanded in custody pending trial.  The appellant is thus also detained under a Warrant of Commitment of Defendant Committed for Trial or Sentence signed by Judge G L Davis, a District Court Judge.

   [2]      R v Rangitaawa District Court Whangarei CRI-2012-011-280, 14 January 2013.

5. The appellant does not challenge the existence of the warrants and the bail judgment mentioned above.  However, he claims he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the District Court.  He is, rather, subject to the jurisdiction of his hapu.  There have been a number of decisions of this Court in which it has been made clear that arguments based on an assertion that the New Zealand Parliament does not have power to make laws affecting some or all the persons living in New Zealand cannot succeed.  All New Zealand Courts are bound to accept the validity of Acts of Parliament, including, in the present case, the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Crimes Act 1961.[3]  All persons living in New Zealand are subject to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand Courts.

   [3]      See, for example, R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004.

6. The appellant also claimed that he is Rangatira Graham Rangitaawa and that the person having that name is a different person from Graham Colin Rangitaawa.  However, as he acknowledged himself during the hearing before us, it was Rangatira Graham Rangitaawa who pleaded guilty to the offence for which the sentence of imprisonment for nine months was imposed.  In his written submissions, he suggested that Graham Colin Rangitaawa was “a legal entity in ‘trust’ with the Registrar-General in office with Internal Affairs New Zealand”.  We do not need to engage with that proposition.  We are satisfied that, having pleaded guilty to the count for which the sentence of imprisonment was imposed, the appellant is the person who is required to serve that sentence.

7. Section 14(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 precludes a Judge dealing with a habeas corpus application from calling into question a conviction or a bail ruling made by a Court of competent jurisdiction.  The appellant’s application effectively asks us to do this.  It must fail on that basis too.

8. We are satisfied that there is no proper basis to challenge the lawfulness of the appellant’s detention.  The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent