Warahi aka Wallace J v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections

[2021] NZHC 3059

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