Warahi v Department of Corrections
[2020] NZCA 587
•23 November 2020 at 4.00 pm
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA651/2020 [2020] NZCA 587 |
| BETWEEN | MAUI WARAHI |
| AND | DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS |
| Hearing: | 19 November 2020 |
Court: | Miller, Clifford and Collins JJ |
Counsel: | Appellant in person |
Judgment: | 23 November 2020 at 4.00 pm |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The appeal is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Clifford J)
The appellant, Maui Warahi, also known — amongst other names — as Jay Maui Wallace, appeals the refusal by Muir J on 4 November 2020 to grant him a writ of habeas corpus.[1]
[1]Warahi v Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2917.
Using the name Maui Warahi the appellant says he is not the person Jay Maui Wallace and, moreover, that Maui Warahi is not subject to the laws of New Zealand, pursuant to which he is currently remanded in custody on various charges. Accordingly, contrary to the Judge’s decision, that detention is unlawful, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
The appellant acknowledges that at birth he was given the name, and was subsequently known as, Jay Maui Wallace. But, he says, he subsequently disclaimed that name. Materials he filed for the purposes of this appeal included a copy of a document entitled “Certified Copy of birth entry in the Māori Chief Registrar Office”, recording the birth of “Maui Warahi” on 16 December 1974. Others comprise standard forms of a statutory declaration, an affidavit of identity, and a declaration of rights, all premised on the assertion that the holder is Māori and not subject to the laws of New Zealand which authorise the appellant’s detention.
The respondent, the Chief Executive, has placed before the Court a copy of a warrant to detain Jay Maui Wallace on charges of breach of conditions of intensive supervision, assaulting a person, obtaining by deception and failing to answer District Court bail dated 28 October 2020. That warrant is directed to every Constable and to the Manager of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility and authorises Jay Maui Wallace’s detention until Wednesday 2 December, when he is to be presented to the Manukau District Court at 11.45 am.
Mr Warahi’s challenge to the prima facie authorisation of his detention that warrant provides is based on propositions of identity, jurisdiction and sovereignty that he has, under a number of names, advanced on many occasions before.[2]
[2]See, for example, Warahiv Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 585 (where the appellant gave his name as “Maui Warahi (TM) beneficiary, sole flesh n Blood of Jay Wallace, Natural Person”); Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 602 (“Abdullah Maui Warahi”); and Wallace v Ministry of Justice [2011] NZCA 678 (“Hei Rangatira J Maui Wallace”).
As to the specific issue of identity, in December 2016 this Court observed:[3]
[9] We note in particular that there is no issue about the appellant’s identity. He admits that the name Jay Wallace was given to him by his natural parents at birth. He wishes to be known as Abdullah Maui Warahi and says he has taken steps through his Tribal Councils to achieve this. However, on his own admission, Jay Maui Wallace and Abdullah Maui Warahi are one and the same person.
Those comments apply equally here.
[3]Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 2.
As to the broader questions of jurisdiction and sovereignty, in declining the application of Jay Maui Wallace (also known as Abdullah Maui Warahi) to appeal that decision, the Supreme Court observed in February 2017:[4]
[4] The applicant filed a number of documents in this Court in support of his application for leave, but none of these provided any basis for calling into question the lawfulness of his detention. Rather, the documentation appears to challenge the jurisdiction of the Courts over the applicant on Maori sovereignty grounds and assert that the applicant is himself sovereign and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. There is nothing in these documents that provides any support for the applicant’s assertions.
[5] Similar arguments have been rejected by this Court in earlier cases.
Again, those comments apply equally here.
[4]Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1.
Nothing in this application by Maui Warahi, otherwise known as Jay Maui Wallace, therefore calls into question the legality of his detention. His appeal against the judgment of Muir J declining his application for a writ of habeas corpus is, therefore, dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
1
3
0