DELAMARE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 272

DELAMARE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZCA 272 [28 June 2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA205/2022[2022] NZCA 272BETWEEN BEAUXDINE PETER DELAMAREAppellantAND ATTORNEY-GENERALRespondentHearing: 8 June 2022Court: Gilbert, Mander and Fitzgerald JJCounsel: Appellant in PersonJ B Watson and T Li for RespondentJudgment: 28 June 2022 at 9.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Fitzgerald J)[1] On 9 August 2021, Mr Delamare was sentenced by Judge Crayton inthe District Court to three years and five months' imprisonment.1[2] In early April 2022, Mr Delamare applied to the High Court for a writ of habeascorpus. The grounds upon which he did so are not entirely clear but boil down tothe proposition that the laws of New Zealand do not apply to him. Mr Delamare also1 R v Delamare [2021] NZDC 16098.raised concerns about whether he had had sufficient resources available to him incustody to adequately defend his case, that unlawful judicial decisions were made athis trial, and that certain international treaties were breached in the course of hisengagement in the criminal justice process. He also said that he had been treated inan unlawful manner by the police and that there was a "breach of contract" on the partof the Judge.[3] In a judgment delivered on 5 April 2022, Gendall J dismissed Mr Delamare'sapplication for a writ of habeas corpus.2 The Judge found that Mr Delamare waslawfully detained pursuant to a warrant issued by the District Court Judge, and thatnone of the matters raised by Mr Delamare undermined the lawfulness of that warrant.3[4] Mr Delamare appeals against Gendall J's judgment.The appeal[5] Mr Delamare's submissions on appeal were somewhat difficult to discern.We have, however, drawn the following from his written submissions:(a) Mr Delamare relies on what he refers to as the "universal sovereignlaws of Ihowa", which are above all human laws, including "crown orQueen laws";(b) the "New Zealand Company" broke these laws by trespassing onancestral land, which is a sin;(c) New Zealand is accordingly "unrighteous"; and(d) by reference to certain biblical extracts, the fact of unrighteousness,coupled with the universal sovereign laws of Ihowa, means that"New Zealand" has no jurisdiction over Mr Delamare.2 Delamere v Attorney General [2022] NZHC 699 [High Court judgment].3 At [9] and [15].[6] In his oral submissions, Mr Delamare explained that he was utilising hisapplication for a writ of habeas corpus to "restore his physical being", given he hadbeen "left as a dead body" (demonstrated by, for example, his name being recorded incapitals in various court documents). Mr Delamare further submitted that there aretwo jurisdictions within New Zealand, one of the Crown and one of thetangata whenua, and given Mr Delamare is belonging to and of the land, he is not partof the citizenship that is subject to the Crown's jurisdiction.Discussion[7] The onus is on the Attorney-General to establish that Mr Delamare's detentionis lawful. If the detention is not lawful, the Court must order Mr Delamare's release.4In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison, this Court held that once a prisonsuperintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant,the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must demonstrate that the warrant does notin fact provide a lawful justification in the circumstances.5[8] The Attorney-General produced the relevant warrant at the hearing beforethe High Court. Mr Delamare is currently detained pursuant to a warrant issued byJudge Crayton on 9 August 2021 under s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.His statutory release date is 29 April 2023. As the Judge found, the warrantdemonstrates a lawful basis for Mr Delamare's detention.6[9] Mr Delamare does not, directly at least, challenge the lawfulness ofthe warrant. We agree with the Judge's conclusion that none of the matters raised byMr Delamare means that the warrant is unlawful.[10] To the extent Mr Delamare's application relies on grievances arising fromthe colonisation of New Zealand, and thereby a challenge to the sovereignty of4 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).5 Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].6 High Court judgment, above n 2, at [9].Parliament, the courts (including the Supreme Court) have rejected such arguments.7As this Court recently explained:8Acts of Parliament, including criminal enactments, are binding on all personswithin the geographical territory of New Zealand. The Courts of New Zealandmust uphold all Acts of Parliament as enacted.[11] Mr Delamare is accordingly subject to the laws of New Zealand, includingthose which justify his current detention.[12] As to those other matters raised by Mr Delamare, they did not feature to anyparticular extent in his written or oral submissions on appeal. The Judge was, however,plainly correct when he concluded that matters such as alleged police impropriety,difficulties for Mr Delamare in preparing his case and alleged unlawful decisions madeat his trial are not appropriately ventilated through an application for a writ of habeascorpus.9[13] In short, the arguments advanced by Mr Delamare, insofar as we can discernthem, are untenable.[14] As Mr Delamare is presently detained in custody pursuant to a lawful warrantto detain, the Judge was correct to dismiss his application for a writ of habeas corpus.Result[15] The appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent7 See for example Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20at [7].8 Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105 at [11].9 High Court judgment, above n 2, at [11], [12] and [14].