WALLACE V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WHA CIV-2013-488-000027

WALLACE V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WHA CIV-2013-488- 000027 [24 January 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYCIV-2013-488-000027[2013] NZHC 14IN THE MATTER OF the Habeas Corpus Act 2001BETWEEN JAY MAUI WALLACEApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 24 January 2013(Heard at Auckland)Appearances: Applicant in Person by AVSA Longdill for RespondentJudgment: 24 January 2013JUDGMENT OF VENNING JThis judgment was delivered by me on 24 January 2013 at 4.55 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDateSolicitors: Crown Solicitor, AucklandCopy to: Applicant[1] The Registrar referred the attached application for habeas corpus to me as Duty Judge on 23 January 2013. A hearing was arranged for the applicant to attend by AVS on 24 January 2013. The hearing proceeded this afternoon.[2] At the conclusion of the hearing I dismissed the application for habeas corpus and made an order for costs in the sum of $500 against the applicant. I was not able to deliver the reasons at the time because of the behaviour of the applicant. Because of that behaviour I terminated the AVS link after advising Mr Wallace the application for habeas corpus was dismissed and that a costs order of $500 was made against him.[3] Mr Wallace sought to address questions and a questionnaire to the Court and also to file further documents with the Court, including a birth certificate. I told Mr Wallace that it was not for him to require the Court to answer his questions. I also told him that I did not require a copy of the birth certificate. Nor did I require written submissions. I invited him to address the Court orally and make whatever submission he wished to.[4] As far as I could apprehend it Mr Wallace's application for habeas corpus appeared to be on the basis of identity. He referred to a birth certificate for Jay Maui Wallace. Mr Wallace seems to take the point that the fact he now calls himself Abdullah Jay Maui Wallace is of significance.[5] I am satisfied that the person before the Court and who made the application for habeas corpus is in fact Jay Maui Wallace.[6] The papers also refer to "Te Tangata Whenua Sovereign Council".[7] Mr Wallace has made previous unsuccessful applications for habeas corpus (and unsuccessful appeals from the decision of this Court declining the application),11 Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-4235,19 July 2011; Wallace v Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive of Department of Corrections[2011] NZCA 678; and Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2012] NZSC16.on issues relating to sovereignty, a matter I was not aware of when the hearing was allocated.[8] Section 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies. The Court should not have accepted this further application by Mr Wallace.[9] In any event Ms Longdill for the Crown produced to the Court warrants ofcommitment confirming the authority for Mr Wallace's imprisonment. The warrantswere signed by Brewer J on 30 June 2011. The term of imprisonment has not expired. Mr Wallace is properly detained.[10] The application for habeas corpus by Mr Wallace was improperly brought. It is frivolous and vexatious.[11] For those reasons the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.[12] In the circumstances the respondent is to have costs of $500 against Mr Wallace.__________________________ Venning J