Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2013] NZHC 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

CIV-2013-488-000027 [2013] NZHC 14

IN THE MATTER OF     the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN  JAY MAUI WALLACE Applicant

ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:         24 January 2013 (Heard at Auckland)

Appearances: Applicant in Person by AVS A Longdill for Respondent

Judgment:      24 January 2013

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 January 2013 at 4.55 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High

Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:            Applicant

WALLACE V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WHA CIV-2013-488-

000027 [24 January 2013]

[1]      The Registrar referred the attached application for habeas corpus to me as Duty Judge on 23 January 2013.  A hearing was arranged for the applicant to attend by AVS on 24 January 2013. The hearing proceeded this afternoon.

[2]      At the conclusion of the hearing I dismissed the application for habeas corpus and made an order for costs in the sum of $500 against the applicant.  I was not able to deliver the reasons at the time because of the behaviour of the applicant.  Because of that behaviour I terminated the AVS link after advising Mr Wallace the application for habeas corpus was dismissed and that a costs order of $500 was made against him.

[3]      Mr Wallace sought to address questions and a questionnaire to the Court and also to file further documents with the Court, including a birth certificate.  I told Mr Wallace that it was not for him to require the Court to answer his questions.  I also told him that I did not require a copy of the birth certificate.   Nor did I require written submissions.  I invited him to address the Court orally and make whatever submission he wished to.

[4]      As far as I could apprehend it Mr Wallace’s application for habeas corpus appeared to be on the basis of identity.  He referred to a birth certificate for Jay Maui Wallace.   Mr Wallace seems to take the point that the fact he now calls himself Abdullah Jay Maui Wallace is of significance.

[5]      I am satisfied that the person before the Court and who made the application for habeas corpus is in fact Jay Maui Wallace.

[6]      The papers also refer to “Te Tangata Whenua Sovereign Council”.

[7]      Mr Wallace has made previous unsuccessful applications for habeas corpus

(and unsuccessful appeals from the decision of this Court declining the application),[1]

on issues relating to sovereignty, a matter I was not aware of when the hearing was allocated.

[1] Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-4235,

[8]      Section 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies.   The Court should not have accepted this further application by Mr Wallace.

[9]      In any event Ms Longdill for the Crown produced to the Court warrants of commitment confirming the authority for Mr Wallace’s imprisonment.  The warrants were signed by Brewer J on 30 June 2011.   The term of imprisonment has not expired.  Mr Wallace is properly detained.

[10]     The application for habeas corpus by Mr Wallace was improperly brought.  It is frivolous and vexatious.

[11]     For those reasons the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

[12]     In the circumstances the respondent is to have costs of $500 against Mr

Wallace.

Venning J

19 July 2011;  Wallace v Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive of Department of Corrections
[2011] NZCA 678; and Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2012] NZSC
16.