Warahi aka Wallace J v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2092

[2021] NZHC 3059

BETWEEN
MAUI WARAHI aka WALLACE J

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant

Judgment:

(On the papers)
11 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[1]Mr Jay Maui Wallace is an inmate at Ngawha Prison.

[2] On 3 November 2021, Mr Wallace emailed documents to the registry which include, midway in the first page, the following words:

Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

[3]The registry accepted the documents for filing.

[4] In fact, there is no application. The handwritten portions of the documents do no more than reproduce portions of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). There are no allegations at all.

[5] There is a printed page with definitions of two expressions in Latin and a reference to the Interpretation Act 1999.

[6] There is also a statutory declaration of identity and an affidavit of identity which fit the “sovereign being” model that the Court is well familiar with.
MAUI WARAHI aka WALLACE J v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 3059 [11 November 2021]

[7] I infer that if the documents actually applied for a writ of habeas corpus, the principal ground might be deduced from the following passage of the affidavit of identity:

That the state has no legal jurisdiction or sovereign authority justified in origin to hear this matter.

[8]Section 14(1A) of Act provides:

Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

(a)…

(b)an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[9] I consider that the documents filed by Mr Wallace do not raise any matter to which a writ of habeas corpus could respond. An application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering a matter where no allegations are made by the applicant going to the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act.

[10] If my inferred allegation (the natural sovereignty lack of jurisdiction point) is the one Mr Wallace wishes to advance, then it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to consider it further.

[11]The application, if that is what it is, is struck out.

Brewer J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Warahi aka Wallace J v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections involved an application by Mr Jay Maui Wallace, an inmate at Ngawha Prison, who sought a writ of habeas corpus. The application, however, did not contain any allegations or specific claims under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. Instead, the documents submitted included reproduced sections of the Act and a statutory declaration of identity. The court noted that the absence of specific allegations made it impossible to determine the grounds upon which the writ was sought. The judge inferred that if the application was based on a lack of jurisdiction, it would be an abuse of the court's process to consider it further.

The central legal issue was whether the submitted documents constituted a valid application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court examined whether the application was appropriate for considering the alleged matter under the Act, given the absence of specific allegations. The court found that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus was not suitable when no allegations were made by the applicant regarding the jurisdiction of the Court under the Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the application, if it could be deemed as such, did not meet the criteria for a writ of habeas corpus.

Brewer J dismissed the application. The court reasoned that the documents did not raise any matter to which a writ of habeas corpus could respond and that the application was not the appropriate procedure for considering a matter where no allegations were made. The application was struck out, and no writ of habeas corpus was issued.

Brewer J ordered that the application be dismissed and that the matter be struck out. The court found that the application did not meet the requirements for a writ of habeas corpus, and therefore, no further consideration was warranted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established