Turner v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 64/2018
[2018] NZSC 83

BETWEEN	MOKO PUNA TUA TAHI TURNER Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person A M Powell and J B Watson for Respondent
Judgment:	3 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B No order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant has been remanded in custody for sentencing following conviction for assault with intent to injure contrary to s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961. He seeks leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of the High Court dismissing his application for habeas corpus.[1]
[1]Turner v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 1948 (Fitzgerald J).
The primary argument the applicant wishes to make is that the District Court had no jurisdiction.[2] To illustrate the proposed approach, he wishes to argue there is no evidence native customary title has been extinguished in relation to certain land and that this affects the jurisdiction of the District Court in this case.
[2]The applicant also says proper procedures have not been followed in considering his claim.
Where leave to appeal directly to this Court is sought the Court must not grant leave unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to this Court.[3] As Fitzgerald J noted, the applicant does not raise any issue as to the validity of the warrant which has been produced.[4] In these circumstances, there is nothing about the proposed appeal that suggests any exceptional circumstances arise to justify a direct appeal.
[3]This in addition to the usual criteria: Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75; and Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14.
[4]The Judge also referred to ss 14(1A) and 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Moko Puna Tua Tahi Turner, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against a High Court decision that dismissed his application for habeas corpus. Turner, who had been remanded in custody for sentencing after being convicted of assault with intent to injure, argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction and that proper procedures had not been followed in considering his claim. The primary argument Turner wished to make was that there was no evidence native customary title had been extinguished in relation to certain land, affecting the jurisdiction of the District Court. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections opposed the application.

The court considered whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. Turner did not raise any issue about the validity of the warrant produced, and therefore, nothing about the proposed appeal suggested any exceptional circumstances arose to justify a direct appeal. The court also noted that Turner did not raise any issue as to the validity of the warrant, and there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify a direct appeal. The court considered the criteria under the Senior Courts Act 2016 and the Supreme Court Act 2003 and the relevant sections of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The court did not make any order as to costs. The Crown Law Office represented the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established