Teepu v Chief Judge of the Waitakere District Court

[2022] NZHC 669

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2022-404-393

[2022] NZHC 669

UNDER

The Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

SAINT JOHN TEEPU on behalf of KHALEEL SONNY SIMONS

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE WAITAKERE DISTRICT COURT

First Respondent

THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE HAMILTON DISTRICT COURT

Second Respondent

JOHN CORBY
Third Respondent

CUSTODIAL MANAGER

Fourth Respondent

Hearing:	30 March 2022
Appearances:	S J Teepu & K S Simons in Person L Dittrich for Fourth Respondent
Judgment:	4 April 2022

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 April 2022 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

TEEPU on behalf of SIMONS v THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE WAITAKERE DISTRICT COURT & CUSTODIAL MANAGER [2022] NZHC 669 [4 April 2022]

[1]    Saint John Teepu has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Khaleel Sonny Simons who is currently detained as a remand accused prisoner at Mt Eden Corrections facility. When the application for writ of habeas corpus was filed in Court a hearing was promptly arranged for it. Mr Teepu, Mr Simons and counsel for the fourth respondent attended the Court by audio-visual link.

[2]    In written submissions counsel for the fourth respondent queried whether Mr Teepu was authorised to act on behalf of Mr Simons. However, at the hearing of the application Mr Simons was present and he confirmed that Mr Teepu had brought the application on behalf of Mr Simons. Given the difficulties Mr Simons faced in pursuing the application himself while on remand in custody I was prepared to allow Mr Teepu to speak on behalf of Mr Simons.

The application

[3]    The thrust of the application was that Mr Simons was being unlawfully detained. It is fair to say that part of the challenge to the allegedly unlawful detention of Mr Simons is that the Court lacks jurisdiction and/or Parliament’s laws are invalid, based on claims of Māori sovereignty.

[4]    The applicant claims that the charges underlying Mr Simons’ detention on remand are invalid because Mr Simons was exercising rights under tikanga and otherwise acting according to tikanga. In detaining Mr Simons, officers allegedly acted in a disproportionately severe manner and in breach of the tikanga of his marae. The applicant claims the circumstances of Mr Simons’ arrest were in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[5]    Secondly, the applicant claims Mr Simons was incorrectly recalled following a bail breach. His lawyers allegedly did not put forward relevant evidence. Additionally, they allegedly did not put forward a proper interpretation of tikanga laws and remedies.

Fourth respondent’s submissions

[6]    Counsel for the fourth respondent filed helpful submissions.  She referred to  s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, noting that the provision is expressed in mandatory terms to the effect if the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention. However, she also draws the Court’s attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison where it was said: 1

In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as the respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation … it would then be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances.

[7]    Further, counsel for the fourth respondent refers to s 14(1A)(b) which provides an exception to s 14(1). The former provision provides that the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus with requiring the defendant to establish the legality of the detention if the Court is satisfied that an application for writ of habeas corpus “is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.” In addition, she refers to s 14(2)(b) which provides that an application for habeas corpus “does not entitle a Judge to call into question … a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

[8]    In this case, the fourth respondent submits the writ ought not issue on the basis that Mr Simons’ detention is lawful and that ss 14(2)(b) and 14(1A)(b) of the Act render the habeas corpus procedure inapplicable. In this regard the respondent submits that the detention of Mr Simons is pursuant to a valid warrant of commitment dated 21 March 2022 issued in relation to charges Mr Simons is currently facing. The warrant, a copy of which was provided to the Court, records as follows:

(a)Records that the hearing of 10 charges has been adjourned and the defendant remanded in custody for the period of adjournment until 7 April 2022.

1      Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 at [70].

(b)Records that those charges are against Mr Khaleel Sonny Simons of 418 Seaford Road, Waihi Beach.

(c)Directs every Constable to deliver the defendant “to the prison at Mount Eden Correction Facility”; and

(d)Directs “the said Manager to receive the defendant into your control and to detain the defendant” until “Thursday the 7th day of April 2022 when the defendant is required to appear … at the Waitakere District Court at 12.00 pm to answer further to the charges.”

[9]    It is therefore submitted that to the extent that the lawfulness of Mr Simons’ detention is based on a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament or the jurisdiction of the Courts it does not succeed. Reliance is placed on Warren v R, a decision of the Supreme Court, which notes that challenges to the Courts on jurisdictional grounds based on Māori sovereignty have been consistently rejected.2 The respondent submits that nothing in the application for the writ of habeas corpus demonstrates that the warrant in relation to Mr Simons does not provide a lawful justification for his continued detention until 7 April 2022 when he is to appear again in the District Court.

[10]   It is further argued by the respondent that the warrant to remand Mr Simons in custody was issued in the context of an unsuccessful application for bail by Mr Simons. Accordingly, the fourth respondent submits s 14(2)(b) of the Act applies to preclude the Court from calling into question the ruling of a Court of competent jurisdiction in relation to bail.

[11]   For completeness the fourth respondent draws the Court’s attention to the fact Mr Teepu on behalf of Mr Simons has not alleged that Mr Simons who appeared before me in Court is not the Khaleel Sonny Simons referred to on the face of the warrant to detain him. Accordingly, it is submitted Mr Simons’ detention is lawful and the writ of habeas corpus should not issue.

2      Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156.

[12]   To the extent the application for writ of habeas corpus is based on alleged breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the fourth respondent submits that the pursuant to s 14(1A)(b) of the Act the application for writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant. In all the circumstances the fourth respondent submits Mr Simons is lawfully detained and the application for writ of habeas corpus ought to be dismissed.

Discussion

[13]   The submissions made by the fourth respondent are soundly based in law. I am satisfied that Mr Simons is someone who has been lawfully detained pursuant to a valid warrant of commitment dated 21 March 2022. Accordingly, I consider that the relevant sections of the Habeas Corpus Act to which I have already referred preclude me from calling into question the lawfulness of Mr Simons’ detention. I am fully satisfied he is lawfully detained and therefore the application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

[14]   The appropriate avenue to challenge Mr Simons’ detention on remand is via an appeal of his bail decision or a fresh bail application. Issues relating to the circumstances of the charges should be dealt with at the upcoming trial.

Result

[15]The application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Duffy J