SIMON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 222

SIMON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 222 [3 June 2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA24/2022[2022] NZCA 222BETWEEN GREGORY ANTHONY RUA TAUROAHIMIONA SIMONAppellantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 2 May 2022Court: Courtney, Thomas and Duffy JJCounsel: Appellant in PersonS M Kinsler and H L Botha for RespondentJudgment: 3 June 2022 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Courtney J)[1] Mr Simon is facing a number of sexual and violence charges.1 He is currentlydetained at Spring Hill Corrections Facility. In December 2021 Mr Simon applied fora writ of habeas corpus. Venning J dismissed the application.2 Mr Simon appeals.1 Crimes Act 1961, s 128(1)(a) (male rapes female over 16); s 128(1)(b) (unlawful sexualconnection); s 189(2) (injuring with intent); s 189A (strangulation/suffocation); s 306 (threateningto kill); s 202C (assault with weapon); and s 194(b) (male assaults female).2 Simon v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 3616.[2] On an application for habeas corpus by a person detained in prison theDepartment of Corrections has the onus of proving that the applicant is being detainedlawfully. It can do so by producing a committal warrant or other authorisation todetain. It is then for the applicant to show that the document produced does not justifydetention in the particular circumstances.3[3] Mr Simon filed written submissions and addressed us orally. He explained thathe had not received the respondent's submissions prior to the hearing in the HighCourt. This was, apparently, the result of a delay within the prison in providingMr Simon with the submissions. As a result, we invited Mr Simon to make thesubmissions he wished to make in the High Court as well as to identify any error inthe Judge's decision.[4] Mr Simon argued that there is a distinction between himself, as a"natural person" and the "legal person/corpus body" named in the warrant. FromMr Simon's assertions that he could not be compelled to enter into any contract, weinfer that he regards the authority of the court as a matter of consent by him and thatsince he does consent to be bound by the authority of the Court, the warrant is not avalid basis on which to detain him.[5] Arguments similar to this, based on the concept of the "sovereign citizen" areregularly made in New Zealand courts.4 However, they have no legal basis and cannotsucceed.5 All persons in New Zealand are subject to the laws made by the NewZealand Parliament and to the authority of the courts in enforcing those laws.[6] The Judge considered Mr Simon's application on the basis of warrants dated 5and 18 November 2021. Since then, a fresh warrant has been issued; the respondent3 Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].4 Including in applications for habeus corpus. See, for example, Smith v Chief Executive of theDepartment of Corrections [2019] NZCA 362; Te Tangata Whenua v Chief Executive of theDepartment of Corrections [2017] NZSC 189; and Nathan v Chief Executive of the Departmentof Corrections [2020] NZCA 534.5 See, for example, Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 105at [10]–[11]; Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20;Rangitaawa v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZCA 2 at [5]; Martin vChief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811 at [20]; Wallace v ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1 at [4]–[5].has produced a warrant issued by the District Court dated 10 February 2022.6Mr Simon has not provided any information that could have undermined the authorityof the warrants the Judge considered, nor the current warrant. The Judge was thereforecorrect to find that Mr Simon was lawfully detained and we are satisfied that theongoing detention is also lawful.[7] The appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Meredith Connell, Wellington for Respondent6 This is a fresh warrant issued since the High Court decision.