Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2020] NZSC 161

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

1. 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].

2. 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].

3. 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.

4. The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.