WALLACE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 2965

WALLACE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 2965 [6 December 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2016-404-3061[2016] NZHC 2965BETWEEN JAY MAUI WALLACE (AKAABDULLAH MAUI WARAHI)ApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 6 December 2016Appearances: Applicant in person (by AVL)N E Copeland for the RespondentJudgment: 6 December 2016Reasons: 8 December 2016REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE JParties / Solicitors:Applicant, C/o Mt Eden Correctional Facility Ms N E Copeland, Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland[1] Mr Jay Maui Wallace, using the name Abdullah Maui Warahi, applied for a writ of habeas corpus.[2] When the matter was referred to me on 5 December 2016 the basis for Mr Wallace's detention in prison was not entirely apparent from his application and I directed a hearing the following morning, 6 December, with Mr Wallace to be on AVL from prison.[3] By the time the hearing commenced I had received documents which made it clear that Mr Wallace's detention was lawful. Mr Wallace had been arrested on17 October 2013 and subsequently charged with various offences. It is unnecessary to record the particulars. On 27 October 2016 an application by Mr Wallace for bail was declined.1 Mr Wallace appealed against that decision. His appeal to this Court was dismissed on 11 November 2016.2[4] At the commencement of the hearing Mr Wallace confirmed the matters I have just referred to. I then advised him that, because it was clear that his detention in prison was lawful a writ of habeas corpus would not be issued. Mr Wallace then began to challenge me in an intemperate way. I confirmed that a writ would not be issued, that my reasons would be provided in due course, and terminated the hearing.[5] My reasons for refusing the application for the writ are, in essence, contained in what I have just said. In terms of s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, a writ must be issued unless the defendant establishes that the detention is lawful. As I have said, the arrest and refusal of bail plainly make the detention lawful.[6] Section 14(2)(b) is of direct application. This provides that, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the judge dealing with it must inquire into any matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention, but that obligation does not entitle the Judge to call into question a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.3There have been bail rulings by two Courts of competent jurisdiction.1 Police v Wallace [2016] NZDC 21345.2 Wallace v Police [2016] NZHC 2707.3 See Taylor v Superintendent of the Waikato Bay of Plenty Regional Prison [2002] NZAR 425 (CA) at [10]; Harris v North Shore District Prison Board [2002] NZAR 271 (HC) at [12].[7] It is relevant to note there have been two earlier applications for writs of habeas corpus by Mr Wallace.4 Mr Wallace has also brought unsuccessful appeals from at least the first of those decisions.5 Those decisions were directed to some of the grounds advanced by Mr Wallace on the present application and which did not justify issue of the writ; arguments which can be broadly characterised as Maori sovereignty challenges to jurisdiction.[8] It is for these various reasons that I was satisfied that the application should be dismissed.____________________________________Woodhouse J4 Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections HC Auckland CIV-2011-404- 004235, 19 July 2011; Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZHC 14.5 Wallace v Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2011] NZCA 678; Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2012] NZSC 16.