Wilson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2021] NZHC 422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV 2021-463-16

[2021] NZHC 422

UNDER THE

HABEAS CORPUS ACT 2001 and related legislation

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

SAAN HUIA WILSON

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:	8 March 2021
Appearances:	S H Wilson for the Applicant, in person (by audio link) A J Gordon for the Respondent (by audio link)
Judgment:	8 March 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

WILSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 422 [8

March 2021]

[1]                 Mr Wilson is presently detained by the respondent, the Department of Corrections. Mr Wilson applies for a writ of habeas corpus.1

[2]                 The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to enable the applicant, in this case Mr Wilson, to challenge the validity of his or her detention in custody.

[3]                 The respondent has supplied to this court various documents to establish that Mr Wilson’s detention is lawful. These show that Mr Wilson was recently arrested on four charges. Mr Wilson applied for bail. His application was declined by the District Court on 20 January 2021. Mr Wilson has not appealed that decision.

[4]                 On 12 February 2021 Mr Wilson appeared again in the District Court, and was remanded in custody until 7 April 2021. The respondent has provided this court with a copy of the warrant to detain Mr Wilson until 7 April 2021 that was issued by Judge Hollister-Jones following that appearance.

[5]                 Mr Wilson’s arrest and the refusal of bail plainly make his detention lawful. The effect of s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 is that Mr Wilson may not, on this application, call into question the refusal to grant bail.

[6]                 Mr Wilson’s application does not provide any basis for calling into question the lawfulness of his detention. His application appears to assert that he is a sovereign “living man” beyond the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts. Such an assertion is legally unsound.2

[7]For these reasons I refuse Mr Wilson’s application.

Campbell J

1      This hearing was supposed to be conducted by VMR (Virtual Meeting Room) but the video did not work, Mr Wilson and Ms Gordon agreed to proceed with audio only.

2      Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1; Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811; Meenken v The Family Court at Masterton [2017] NZHC 2103.