Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2017] NZHC 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV--2017-463-2 [2017] NZHC 12

UNDER

The Habeas Corpus Act 2001

The Bill of Rights Act 1990
Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act
1993 (the Principal Act)

BETWEEN

RHYS RICHARD (NGAHIWI) WARREN

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	17 January 2017
Appearances	Applicant in person Ms Lawson-Bradshaw for Department of Corrections
Judgment:	17 January 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

Solicitors:

Applicant - self represented

Respondent - Crown Law

Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12 [17 January 2017]

[1]      Rhys Richard (Ngahiwi) Warren lodged with the Court an application dated

21 December 2016 purporting to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, particularly the provisions of s 6.   That application appears to have been received by the Court on 5 January 2017 and it has been set down for a hearing on the earliest available opportunity, taking into account the

provisions of the High Court Rules which apply during the Court’s Long Vacation.1

Mr Warren's application purportedly relies also on provisions of the Bill of Rights

Act 1990 and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

[2]      The grounds on which Mr Warren seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his current detention at Rimutaka Prison are that the Department of Corrections is bound by  the  Corrections  Act  2004,  which  he  says  was  legislated  by  an  unlawful Parliament, due to the fact that the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (UK) which gave the New Zealand Parliament the right to make laws, was repealed in 1986. Notwithstanding that  argument,  Mr Warren  purports  to  rely on  certain  statutory provisions enacted by the same Parliament.

[3]      Nevertheless the Court registry has taken this application seriously as it is required to do for all genuine applications for writs of habeas corpus filed in this Court.2     I am satisfied, however, that this is not a genuine application under the Habeas Corpus Act but is merely an abuse of the Court's process.

[4]      Other grounds advanced by Mr Warren before me this morning included an assertion that he is a member of a Maori incorporation and his reliance on other Maori sovereignty arguments which have been rejected by the Courts repeatedly as not constituting a valid challenge to the lawfulness of a prisoner's detention.

[5]      Mr Warren is detained by virtue of a warrant issued by Brewer J on 15 June

2016 requiring that Mr Warren be detained in custody pending his next appearance in the Court on 6 March 2017 on serious charges relating to attempts to murder police

officers and other firearms offences.  Furthermore, if this were a valid application for

1      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, ss 3 and 9(3), High Court Rules 2016, r 1.3(1)(b).

2      Habeas Corpus Act, s 9(1).

a writ of habeas corpus the Court would be bound by s 14(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act not to call into question a ruling as to bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Mr Warren's applications for bail to the High Court and to the Court of Appeal were both unsuccessful and attempts by Mr Warren to engage the interest of the Supreme Court on these matters also failed.

[6]      Had these papers been brought before me at an earlier stage, I would have directed the Registrar to return them to Mr Warren as not engaging the Court's jurisdiction under the habeas corpus legislation.   However, the application having been set down for the hearing which has been conducted this morning, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no merit in it and I dismiss it.

Addendum

[7]      It had been my intention, in delivering this judgment orally, to include a direction to the Registrars of the High Court not to receive for filing any further applications  by Mr Warren  of a similar nature  while he remains  subject  to  the warrant issued by Brewer J, but I overlooked doing so.  I am not sure it would be proper to make a formal direction of that kind after the event.

[8]      I do consider it appropriate, however, to warn Mr Warren he will be wasting his time making any further application of this kind; it is bound to fail.3

...................................................

Toogood J

3      Section 15(1) and Misiuk v Attorney-General [2012] NZCA 13, [2012] NZAR 176 at [8]–[9].