SIMON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 3616

SIMON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 3616 [23December 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-2413[2021] NZHC 3616UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN GREGORY ANTHONY RUA TAUROAHIMIONA SIMONApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 23 December 2021 (by VMR)Appearances: Applicant in PersonH L Botha for RespondentJudgment: 23 December 2021JUDGMENT OF VENNING JThis judgment was delivered by me on 23 December 2021 at 12.15 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of theHigh Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateSolicitors: Meredith Connell, AucklandCopy to: Applicant[1] Mr Simon has applied for a discharge of charges under the Criminal ProcedureAct 2011 (CPA) and a writ of habeas corpus. The applications were allocated a hearingby the Court. I convened the hearing this morning. At the outset of the hearing MrSimon repeated the mantra which runs through his written material in support of theapplications, namely that:I reserve all of my rights not to be compelled to enter into any contracts,commercial agreements or bankruptcy. Furthermore I would not accept anypretend contracts, commercial agreements or bankruptcy knowingly orvoluntarily.[2] After that unpromising start to the hearing I advised Mr Simon that the Courtwas not able to deal with his application for a discharge under s 147 of the CPA as thecharges he faces are in the District Court and any application for a discharge in relationto those charges could only be dealt with in the District Court in the first instance. Iadvised Mr Simon that I would deal with his application for a writ of habeas corpus.[3] Mr Simon then asked the Court who I was trustee for. When I indicated that itwas not his role to ask the Court questions and that he should address me on anythingfurther he wished to say in addition to his written material, Mr Simon repeated thequestion, and said that he was a beneficiary of the trust. I suggested to Mr Simon thatthat was a nonsense and invited him again to address any further submissions on thehabeas corpus matter. He declined to do so saying he would take the matter further.[4] I brought the hearing to an end at that point and indicated that I would delivermy decision in writing.[5] Mr Simon faces charges of sexual violation, grievous bodily harm with intentto injure, impeding breathing, threatening to kill, and assault with intent to injure. MrSimon first appeared in the District Court at Hamilton on 5 November 2021 beforeJudge N D Cocurullo.1 He was remanded in custody to appear on 18 November 2021in the District Court at Hamilton. He appeared that day before Judge S R Clark. Hewas remanded in custody to 10 February 2022.1 Police v Simon [2021] NZDC 21784.[6] Mr Simon's application for discharge under s 147 of the CPA appears primarilyto be based on the prosecution's failure to comply with disclosure obligations underthe Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. Whatever the merits of that complaint may be andwhat, if any redress Mr Simon may be entitled to, it is not a matter for this Court. Asnoted, the prosecution is before the District Court. Any application that he wishes tobring in the criminal proceedings are to be brought in the criminal proceedings beforethe District Court.[7] That leaves the application for habeas corpus. Frankly I have some difficultyunderstanding the basis for that application. Mr Simon says:The application is made by the applicant on behalf of the defendant theapplicant does not accept the pretend contract on behalf of the absentdefendant and claims that the [defendants] case has been prejudiced and the[defendants] right have been breached and continues to accumulate a furtherbreach as each day passes.[8] Then later in the application, after repeating the mantra referred to above, MrSimon goes on to say:6. I appear in the flesh, where is the public gallery, this hearing isunlawful.7. I am not the person, that the court seeks in this matter before the court.I have no association with the person, that the court seeks; and8. I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the person, that the courtseeks in this matter before the court, other than to say that the person,that the court seeks is thought to be drowned and lost at sea.9. I am a living being and I seek remedy.10. I am a living being the flesh lives and the blood flows – I seek cureand maintenance.[9] The issue on a habeas corpus application is whether the detention is lawful.Mr Simon, the person physically before the Court, has been charged with the abovecharges and has been remanded in custody on those charges.[10] The Crown have produced copies of the charges and of the warrants remandingMr Simon in custody. The warrants produced before the Court have not beenphysically signed, however rr 2.2 3.5 and 3.7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012apply. The warrants comply with the requirements of r 3.5. The warrants were createdin electronic form and have been authenticated and confirmed as authenticated on 5and 18 November 2021 respectively.[11] As the respondent has produced the relevant warrants it was for Mr Simon todemonstrate the documentation did not provide lawful justification for detention.2 Hehas failed to do so.[12] The application for habeas corpus is dismissed.Addendum[13] I note that this is not the first time that Mr Simon has sought to raise theseissues with the Court. On 19 April 2021 Moore J considered a similar application byMr Simon in relation to previous charges.3 The Judge correctly noted the papers didnot amount to a writ of habeas corpus and directed they be returned to Mr Simon. On5 May 2021 Toogood J considered a further application in those proceedings by MrSimon and ultimately dismissed the application.4[14] The Registrar's attention is drawn to s 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.__________________________Venning J2 Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA).3 Minute of Moore J, dated 19 April 2021.4 Minute of Toogood J, dated 5 May 2021.