Wilson v Department of Corrections Spring Hill Corrections Facility

Case [2022] NZHC 814


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2022-419-091

[2022] NZHC 814

BETWEEN

SAAN HUIA WILSON

Applicant

AND

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS – SPRING HILL CORRECTIONS FACILITY

Respondent

Judgment

(On the papers):

21 April 2022

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J


This judgment was delivered by me on 21 April 2022 at 11:00am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

WILSON v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 814 [21 April 2022]

[1]                   Mr Wilson applies for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr Wilson is currently detained at Spring Hill Corrections Facility pursuant to a warrant dated 17 March 2022 to detain him issued by the District Court pursuant to s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (Warrant). However, Mr Wilson claims that:

1.Attention – This document notifies you that we Saan-Huia Wilson: demand a writ of Habeas Corpus immediately.

2.An Executor De Son Tort trespass was unlawfully perpetuated on the all capital letter – SAAN HUTA WILSON, Estate whom I believe is Police Prosecutions No Police. And they will be held accountable and liable as trustees to correct the damage upon the SAAN HUIA WILSON, Estate.

3.New Zealand Police, Prosecutions, anyone claiming to have Authority will substantiate their claim. “By what Warrant?” They will forth with return and transmit their written delegated authority to “represent” that they are authorised to Administer the all capital letter named SAAN HUIA WILSON Estate together with a certified copy of their Oath for the Office of [Attorney at Law or Government Official], accompanied by certified copies of their BAR BONDS. The office of (the Corporate-Entity) and a detailed list of “all” other bonds, sureties, indemnification and insurance relating in any way to their personal and professional endeavours and their abandoned paperwork intrusion upon the all capital SAAN HUIA WILSON, Estate.

4.We have a common law copyright Notice that will be attached to this document as Notice to the Courts, New Zealand Police and Ministry of Justice that we Saan-Huia Wilson are the copy righted owner of the all capital letter name SAAN HUIA WILSON ©. It is our property. And you will be held liable to any unauthorised use of that property.

5.As occupant of the Executor Office of the SAAN HUIA WILSON, Estate no one has or will ever get permission from this office to administer in any capacity whatsoever, unless by our written authority, and we REBUTT (sic) any assumption or presumption to the contrary.

6.Grounds for immediate release are unauthorised administration (Executor De Son Tort) of the all capital letter SAAN HUIA WILSON, Estate.

7.Mistaken Identity the name on all police charging documents and also Custodial Warrant to detail is a fictitious name and copyrighted property.

8.According to the law a true name cannot be copyrighted or owned like living beings that would be slavery (section 98) Crimes Act.

9.Upon release for unlawful detainment, Ministry of Justice Department and the Corrections Department will facilitate and provide for: Saan- Huia Wilson immediately upon release a vehicle of choice and (cash) credit (negotiable) for reintegration and housing needs.

10.All government agencies will not interfere in the Affairs of the SAAN HUIA WILSON, Estate. They have no Authority over the Estate.

[2]                  Mr Wilson also refers to a “Common Law Copyright Notice”.

[3]                   This is Mr Wilson’s fifth application or purported application for a writ of habeas corpus. The first was filed in the Rotorua Registry of the High Court and dismissed by Campbell J on 8 March 2021.1 The second was also filed in the Rotorua Registry and dismissed by Whata J on 22 March 2021.2 More recently Mr Wilson has purported twice to file applications for writs of habeas corpus in the Auckland Registry. Lang J determined that these did not constitute proper applications for writs of habeas corpus and directed that the purported applications be returned to Mr Wilson.

Discussion

[4]                   Mr Wilson has been arrested on various charges and declined bail. Pursuant to the warrant he is remanded in custody until 5 May 2022 when he is required to appear by way of AVL at the Hamilton District Court at 10:00am to answer further to the charges. The warrant is signed by a District Court Judge. This makes his detention lawful. Mr Wilson’s application, such as it is, provides no basis for challenging the lawfulness of his detention. It is legally unsound.

[5]Mr Wilson’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.


Robinson J


1      Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 422.

2      Wilson v Commissioner of Police [2021] NZHC 581.

Details
AGLC
Wilson v Department of Corrections Spring Hill Corrections Facility [2022] NZHC 814
Case
[2022] NZHC 814
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Wilson, seeks a writ of habeas corpus in an attempt to challenge the lawfulness of his detention at Spring Hill Corrections Facility. The application was heard by Robinson J in the Hamilton Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. Mr Wilson claims that his detention is unlawful due to mistaken identity and unauthorised administration of his estate. This is his fifth such application, with previous attempts dismissed by other judges.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Wilson's detention under the warrant issued by the District Court was lawful. The court had to consider Mr Wilson's claims of mistaken identity and unauthorised administration of his estate, and whether these provided a basis for challenging the lawfulness of his detention. The court also had to assess whether the application for a writ of habeas corpus was properly made and if it provided any legal grounds for relief.

Robinson J dismissed Mr Wilson's application for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that his detention was lawful under the warrant issued by the District Court. The judge noted that Mr Wilson's claims of mistaken identity and unauthorised administration of his estate did not provide a basis for challenging the lawfulness of his detention. The judge further found that Mr Wilson's application, such as it was, provided no legal grounds for relief. This was Mr Wilson's fifth such application, with previous attempts dismissed by other judges.

Mr Wilson's application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed. The court found that his detention under the warrant issued by the District Court was lawful and that his application provided no legal grounds for relief.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.