Mr Warren is charged with two counts of attempted murder and five counts of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.
He is currently detained by virtue of a warrant issued by Brewer J on 15 June 2016 pursuant to s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The warrant complies with r 3.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012.
On 21 December 2016, Mr Warren applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. In an oral judgment delivered on 17 January 2017, Toogood J dismissed the application.[1]

Grounds of application

[1]Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12.

Mr Warren seeks leave to appeal against Toogood J’s judgment to this Court on the basis that:
(a)The Corrections Act 2004 was passed by an unlawful Parliament because the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK) was repealed and replaced by the Constitution Act 1986.
(b)Maori have retained “internal” sovereignty over New Zealand.
Mr Warren also alleges that he was not informed about the scheduled hearing before Toogood J until the day before the hearing and that he could not obtain details of the hearing from the registry.

Our assessment

No exceptional circumstances have been raised which would justify an appeal direct to this Court.[2] In any event, the criteria for leave in s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are not met.
[2]Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14. As of 1 March 2017, the Senior Courts Act 2016 governs applications for leave to appeal to this Court. However, that Act provides that all proceedings “pending or in progress” prior to the commencement of the Act continue under the relevant Act that was then in force: sch 5, pt 2, empowered by s 186. As this application was filed on 13 February 2017, it is governed by the Supreme Court Act 2003.
As the Crown points out, Mr Warren does not challenge the warrant under which he is detained. His challenge is rather a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament.[3] Similar challenges have been rejected by this Court.[4] Any appeal therefore would have no prospect of success.[5]
[3]Both the Supreme Court Act and the Senior Courts Act explicitly provide that nothing in the Act affects New Zealand’s “continuing commitment” to the sovereignty of Parliament: Supreme Court Act, s 3; and Senior Courts Act, s 3.
[4]Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10, at [2]; Wallace v R [2012] NZSC 54 and Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156.
[5]Mr Warren did raise other issues in his submissions relating to the hearing before Toogood J. None of the other issues reach the threshold for granting leave.
As to the process issue raised by Mr Warren, he has not, as the Crown points out, provided any evidence of being given insufficient notice of the hearing. In any event, Mr Warren did attend the hearing and make submissions to Toogood J.

Result

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20
Case: [2017] NZSC 20
Decision Date: 2 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rhys Richard (Ngahiwi) Warren, sought leave to appeal the High Court decision dismissing his habeas corpus application. The case involved his detention under a warrant issued by Brewer J, and his subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed by Toogood J. The appeal to the Supreme Court was based on the applicant's contention that the Corrections Act 2004 was passed by an unlawful Parliament, as the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK) was repealed and replaced by the Constitution Act 1986, and that Maori have retained "internal" sovereignty over New Zealand. The applicant also claimed that he was not informed about the scheduled hearing before Toogood J until the day before the hearing and that he could not obtain details of the hearing from the registry.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the applicant's arguments regarding the sovereignty of Parliament and the sufficiency of notice of the hearing met the criteria for leave to appeal, and whether the applicant's challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament had any prospect of success. The court considered that no exceptional circumstances had been raised to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and that the criteria for leave in section 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 were not met. The court also noted that the applicant's challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament was similar to previous challenges that had been rejected by the Supreme Court, and that any appeal would have no prospect of success.

The court concluded that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The applicant's arguments regarding the sovereignty of Parliament were dismissed as they had been previously rejected by the Supreme Court, and the applicant had not provided any evidence of being given insufficient notice of the hearing. The court noted that the applicant had attended the hearing and made submissions to Toogood J, and that his attendance at the hearing was sufficient notice of the hearing. The court also considered that the applicant's challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and that the applicant was to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The applicant was also to pay the costs of the respondent's counsel, who appeared in person. The court emphasised that the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal was not a determination on the merits of the applicant's case, and that the dismissal did not prevent the applicant from pursuing other legal remedies.

Orders