Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2017] NZHC 2832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2017-485-897 [2017] NZHC 2832

BETWEEN

TE TANGATA WHENUA (AS THIRD

PARTY AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF RHYS WARREN)

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

On thepapers:	17 November 2017
Counsel:	R Warren in person V McCall for Respondent
Judgment:	17 November 2017

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1]      This matter came before me on 30 October 2017. It is an application for habeas corpus by a person who calls himself Te Tangata Whenua as a personal and third party representative of Rhys Warren. They appear to be the same person. It was Mr Warren who indicated initially that he would appear in person.

[2]      I was to hear the matter by teleconference but Mr Warren would not come to the phone.  I was advised he was being disruptive and was relocked in his cell.  I dispensed with the teleconference and asked Crown counsel to file a brief affidavit explaining what had happened.

[3]      On  31  October,  Senior  Corrections  Officer  McBrearty  filed  an  affidavit advising that at the time he was asked to take the call:

WARREN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 2832 [17 November 2017]

Mr Warren became very disruptive and ran around the unit, delivering CDs and other items to other prisoners. He was directed to get on the call with the Court.

Then, he ran to the upper landing of the unit, and continued to deliver items to other prisoners.   He was abusive towards staff.   He was given a final direction to get on the call with the Court, but continued to be abusive and disruptive.

Rather  than  implement  a  control  and  restraint  procedure  either  to  force

Mr Warren to take the Court’s call or to stop conducting himself in an abusive and difficult way, the decision was instead made to re-lock him in his cell (for

his own safety and that of staff).

[4]      In my minute of 30 October, I gave Mr Warren until the end of the following day to file written submissions.  He did not meet that deadline but on 16 November, he filed written submissions essentially challenging the legitimacy of the current legal order and therefore his incarceration; and suggesting he is not the person in whose name he is incarcerated.

[5]      I am  satisfied  that  this  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  must  be dismissed.   The warrant pursuant to which Mr Warren is detained is valid.   He is serving a sentence of preventive detention, a sentence handed down by Brewer J on

11 August 2017.

[6]      Crown counsel refers to authorities both with respect to Mr Warren’s claimed dual personality, and with respect to the challenge to jurisdiction. Without needing to refer to any of them, I find that neither argument has any prospect of success.

[7]      The application is dismissed accordingly.

Williams J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent

Cc       Mr R Warren, Rimutaka Prison