Wilson v Police

[2021] NZCA 327

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA219/2021
 [2021] NZCA 327

BETWEEN	SAAN-HUIA WILSON Appellant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent

Court:	Gilbert and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person No appearance for First Respondent G M Taylor and J B Watson for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	20 July 2021 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is struck out.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

The appeal before this Court

1. Mr Wilson has filed a document in this Court on 19 April 2021 in which he seeks “remedy to writ of habeas corpus filed with the High Court at Auckland on 31st March 2021 and the 7th April 2021”.

2. The grounds of appeal are described as “writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum”.  In the document Mr Wilson describes himself as “the living breathing man” and says that his detention is unlawful on various grounds, including that his birth certificate was “used as a security and evidence of ownership of the overseas person and legal fiction/corporation SAAN-HUIA WILSON”. 

3. The decisions of the High Court that Mr Wilson seeks to challenge are minutes of Lang J dated 31 March 2021 and 8 April 2021.[1]  In the minute of 31 March 2021 the Judge records that Mr Wilson had sought to file an application seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, however:

   [2]       The document Mr Wilson has filed is plainly not an application for a writ of habeas corpus.  It does not establish that Mr Wilson is unlawfully detained in any way so as to engage the habeas corpus procedure.

   [1]Wilson v Police HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-531, 31 March 2021; and Wilson v Police HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-531, 8 April 2021.

4. The Judge directed that the Registrar should return Mr Wilson’s documents to him as soon as practicable.

5. The minute of 8 April 2021 records that Mr Wilson had sought to file a further application purportedly seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.  The Judge recorded that, like the document filed on 31 March 2021, the latest document was:

   … plainly not an application for a writ of habeas corpus.  Again, it does not establish that Mr Wilson is unlawfully detained in any way, so as to engage the habeas corpus procedure. 

6. The Judge directed the Registrar to return Mr Wilson’s documents to him. 

Should the appeal be struck out?

1. As I recorded in a minute dated 21 May 2021, the document received by this Court on 19 April 2021 does not appear to identify any basis on which a writ of habeas corpus could be justified, or any basis on which the challenged decisions of the High Court in the minutes dated 31 March 2021 and 8 April 2021 could be challenged.[2]  Mr Wilson was given 10 working days’ notice of the Court’s intention to consider making an order under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 striking out the appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.  Mr Wilson was given until 18 June 2021 to file submissions in relation to whether the appeal should be struck out under r 44A.

   [2]Wilson v Police CA219/2021, 21 May 2021.

2. Mr Wilson filed seven pages of handwritten submissions, which reached the Court on 21 June 2021.  They are discursive and rambling.  Mr Wilson repeats the references to himself as a “living breathing man of flesh and blood a sovereign human”, refers to the Securities Act 1978, and appears to suggest that his birth certificate has been treated as a certificate of a security, contrary to the prohibition in s 98 of the Crimes Act 1961 on dealing in slaves.  He says he has been:

   … enslaved in debt bondage by New Zealand Police on the grounds that NZ Police charging documents have been issued in the name of the legal fiction/person created and owned by the state the DEBTOR SAAN-HUIA WILSON, but served on the living man a sovereign human and secured party Saan-Huia Wilson.

3. Mr Wilson says there is nothing frivolous in what he claims.  He says his appeal is “vexatious maybe? But that I would expect from a living man with a heart and feelings”.

4. There is nothing in Mr Wilson’s submissions that reveals any basis on which a writ of habeas corpus could be justified.  Nor is there anything in these submissions which identifies a basis on which the High Court minutes could be challenged on appeal.

5. The appeal is plainly frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of the process of the Court.  The respondent should not be required to address it.  The Court’s time should not be spent on the appeal, to the detriment of other meritorious appeals that await a hearing.

Result

1. The appeal is struck out under r 44A(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent