WALLACE (AKA ABDULLAH MAUI WARAHI) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 602

WALLACE (AKA ABDULLAH MAUI WARAHI) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 602 [13 December 2016]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA622/2016[2016] NZCA 602BETWEEN JAY MAUI WALLACE (AKAABDULLAH MAUI WARAHI)AppellantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 12 December 2016Court: Randerson, Harrison and Asher JJCounsel: Appellant in person (via AVL)N E Copeland for RespondentJudgment: 13 December 2016 at 2.15pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Randerson J)Introduction[1] The appellant appeals against the refusal by Woodhouse J on 8 December 2016 of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.11 Jay Maui Wallace (AKA Abdullah Maui Warahi) v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections[2016] NZHC 2965.[2] The appellant filed written submissions dated 11 December 2016 and read them to the Court. As we understand it, the essence of his submission is:(a) He says his correct name is Abdullah Maui Warahi and that the person described as Jay Maui Wallace is not a legal entity.(b) He seeks to be free from arbitrary arrest or detention.(c) He raises certain issues relating to the offences for which he has been arrested and is currently detained pending a hearing.Background[3] The appellant was arrested on 17 October 2016 and charged with certain driving and other offences. He was declined bail in the District Court on 27 October 2016.2 His appeal to the High Court against the refusal of bail was dismissed by Toogood J on 11 November 2016.3[4] On 1 December 2016 the appellant sought to appeal to this Court againstToogood J's decision but was informed the following day that this Court had nojurisdiction by reason of s 47(4) of the Bail Act 2000.[5] In the meantime, the appellant had applied on 28 November 2016 to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The application was heard by Woodhouse J on 6 December 2016. By that time, Woodhouse J had in his possession a copy of a warrant to detain the appellant issued by Judge Andrée Wiltens on 2 December 2016. The warrant authorises the appellant's detention until 21 June 2017.[6] The appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed on8 December 2016. In his decision, Woodhouse J recorded that:4[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 bail2 Police v Wallace [2016] NZDC 21345.3 Wallace v Police [2016] NZHC 2707.4 Jay Maui Wallace (AKA Abdullah Maui Warahi) v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections, above n 1 (footnotes omitted).by a court of competition jurisdiction. There have been bail rulings by two Courts of competent jurisdiction.[7] It is relevant to note there have been two earlier applications for writs of habeas corpus by Mr Wallace. Mr Wallace has also brought unsuccessful appeals from at least the first of those decisions. 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; argumentswhich can be broadly characterised as Māori sovereignty challenges to jurisdiction.Decision[7] The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to enable the applicant to challenge the validity of his or her detention in custody. If the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.5 A judge dealing with an application must inquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention.6 However, as Woodhouse J correctly noted, a judge is not entitled under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 to call into question a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.7[8] In the present case, we are satisfied that Woodhouse J was right to find that the appellant was lawfully detained under the warrant issued by Judge Andrée Wiltens. No grounds have been advanced by the appellant to call into question thelawfulness of his detention. We accept Ms Copeland's submission on behalf of therespondent that the application for a writ of habeas corpus appears to be an attempt to circumvent the procedures of the Bail Act and to obtain bail pending trial.[9] We note in particular that there is no issue about the appellant's identity. Headmits that the name Jay Wallace was given to him by his natural parents at birth. He wishes to be known as Abdullah Maui Warahi and says he has taken steps through his Tribal Councils to achieve this. However, on his own admission, Jay Maui Wallace and Abdullah Maui Warahi are one and the same person.5 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).6 Section 14(2).7 Section 14(2)(b).[10] Since there is no question that the appellant is being lawfully detained, there is no breach of his right to be free from arbitrary detention. Matters the appellant advanced as to the merits of the charges he faces are immaterial for the purpose ofthe present appeal. They are matters to be determined at the appellant's trial.Result[11] For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent