Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 115/2020
[2020] NZSC 161

BETWEEN	RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARREN also known as TE RANGATIRA TANGATA WHENUA Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	23 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant is serving a sentence of preventive detention for attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.[1] This is pursuant to a warrant issued by Brewer J on 11 August 2017. An application by him for habeas corpus was dismissed by Powell J on 10 December 2020.[2] He now seeks leave to appeal from that judgment.
[1]R v Warren [2017] NZHC 1913 (Brewer J).
[2]Re Warren [2020] NZHC 3264 [HC judgment].
The application for habeas corpus and the current application for leave to appeal are based on a Māori sovereignty argument. The application dismissed by Powell J was the applicant’s third such application; the first having been brought while he was in custody awaiting his trial and the second after his conviction and sentence.[3] His application to Powell J was dismissed under s 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 as raising substantially the same questions as were considered in his earlier applications.[4] The Judge also said that it was clear that the applicant was lawfully detained under the August 2017 warrant.[5]
[3]Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12; and Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 2832. In both cases, the applicant then unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to this Court: Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20; and Te Tangata Whenua (Warren) v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 189.
[4]HC judgment, above n 2, at [7].
[5]At [8].
The submissions in support of the application for leave disclose no basis for doubting the correctness of the judgment of Powell J. The proposed appeal does not raise a question of general or public importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.[6]
[6]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2). Nor are there exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to this Court: s 75.
The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rhys Richard Ngahiwī Warren, also known as Te Rangatira Tangata Whenua, is serving a sentence of preventive detention for attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He sought leave to appeal from a judgment of Powell J, who dismissed his application for habeas corpus on the basis that it raised substantially the same questions as his earlier applications, none of which had been successful. The High Court had previously dismissed his application for habeas corpus, which was based on a Māori sovereignty argument, as the applicant was lawfully detained under a warrant issued by Brewer J in 2017. The applicant argued that his detention was unlawful on the basis that he was not a citizen of New Zealand and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts. The Court found that there was no basis for doubting the correctness of the judgment of Powell J and that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court also found that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the application for leave to appeal was based on substantial grounds and whether the proposed appeal raised a question of general or public importance. The Court found that the application for leave to appeal was not based on substantial grounds as the submissions in support of the application did not disclose any basis for doubting the correctness of the judgment of Powell J. The Court also found that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance and that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court accordingly dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal on the basis that it was not based on substantial grounds and that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to the Supreme Court. The Court also found that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. This decision confirms that the New Zealand courts have jurisdiction over Māori individuals and that the applicant's detention is lawful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established