Simon v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2022] NZCA 222

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA24/2022
 [2022] NZCA 222

BETWEEN	GREGORY ANTHONY RUA TAUROA HIMIONA SIMON Appellant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	2 May 2022
Court:	Courtney, Thomas and Duffy JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person S M Kinsler and H L Botha for Respondent
Judgment:	3 June 2022 at 10.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Courtney J)

1. Mr Simon is facing a number of sexual and violence charges.[1]  He is currently detained at Spring Hill Corrections Facility.  In December 2021 Mr Simon applied for a writ of habeas corpus.  Venning J dismissed the application.[2]  Mr Simon appeals.

   [1]Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a) (male rapes female over 16); s 128(1)(b) (unlawful sexual connection); s 189(2) (injuring with intent); s 189A (strangulation/suffocation); s 306 (threatening to kill);  s 202C (assault with weapon); and s 194(b) (male assaults female).

   [2]Simon v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 3616.

2. On an application for habeas corpus by a person detained in prison the Department of Corrections has the onus of proving that the applicant is being detained lawfully.  It can do so by producing a committal warrant or other authorisation to detain.  It is then for the applicant to show that the document produced does not justify detention in the particular circumstances.[3]

   [3]Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].

3. Mr Simon filed written submissions and addressed us orally.  He explained that he had not received the respondent’s submissions prior to the hearing in the High Court.  This was, apparently, the result of a delay within the prison in providing Mr Simon with the submissions.  As a result, we invited Mr Simon to make the submissions he wished to make in the High Court as well as to identify any error in the Judge’s decision.

4. Mr Simon argued that there is a distinction between himself, as a “natural person” and the “legal person/corpus body” named in the warrant.  From Mr Simon’s assertions that he could not be compelled to enter into any contract, we infer that he regards the authority of the court as a matter of consent by him and that since he does consent to be bound by the authority of the Court, the warrant is not a valid basis on which to detain him.

5. Arguments similar to this, based on the concept of the “sovereign citizen” are regularly made in New Zealand courts.[4]  However, they have no legal basis and cannot succeed.[5]  All persons in New Zealand are subject to the laws made by the New Zealand Parliament and to the authority of the courts in enforcing those laws.

   [4]Including in applications for habeus corpus.  See, for example, Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZCA 362; Te Tangata Whenua v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 189; and Nathan v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZCA 534.

   [5]See, for example, Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [10]–[11]; Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20; Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZCA 2 at [5]; Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811 at [20]; Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1 at [4]–[5].

6. The Judge considered Mr Simon’s application on the basis of warrants dated 5 and 18 November 2021.  Since then, a fresh warrant has been issued; the respondent has produced a warrant issued by the District Court dated 10 February 2022.[6]  Mr Simon has not provided any information that could have undermined the authority of the warrants the Judge considered, nor the current warrant.  The Judge was therefore correct to find that Mr Simon was lawfully detained and we are satisfied that the ongoing detention is also lawful.

   [6]This is a fresh warrant issued since the High Court decision.

7. The appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent