MANUEL v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2015 [10 August 2020]

MANUEL v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2015[10 August 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2020-485-384[2020] NZHC 2015UNDER THE Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER OF an application for a writ of habeas corpus adsubjiciendumBETWEEN JOHN JOSEPH MANUELApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Applicant in PersonL Dittrich for CrownJudgment: 10 August 2020JUDGMENT OF CLARK J[1] A document "under the seal of the Governor of the Arikinui o TuhoeGovernment" and "Under the Seal of the Divine Constitution of ~:I'HO'WA-WHENUA" and signed by Te-Awhi'O'Rangi as "Governor-High-Chief-Treasury"was filed on 3 August 2020.[2] The document contains a warning:Take notice that if you wilfully fail to comply with this writ of habeas corpusthe High Court will be moved as soon as counsel can be heard for an ordercommitting you to prison for your contempt.[3] Beyond the command to immediately discharge and release John Manuel fromcustody the document does not say that Mr Manuel is detained or why his detention isunlawful.[4] Nevertheless I convened a hearing.Mr Manuel's current status[5] Mr Manuel was remanded in custody on charges of aggravated robbery,wounding with intent to injure or reckless disregard and threatening to kill or causegrievous bodily harm.[6] On 12 July 2019 Judge Large granted Mr Manuel's application for EM bail inrespect of those three charges.1 Some 14 conditions were imposed including standardEM bail conditions. Mr Manuel was to be released from prison to take up his EM bailuntil his next callover on 29 August 2019.[7] Since Judge Large's decision on 12 July 2019 bail conditions have been variedon three occasions the most recent being on 19 May 2020 when Judge Krebs remandedMr Manuel on his existing bail conditions to a 3 August callover regarding his trial.2[8] At the callover on 3 August 2020 Mr Manuel was convicted and Judge Smithnoted the trial record sheet "RT 15.10.20 at 10 am for callover BTC".Prior to the hearing[9] I had cause to issue a minute on 6 August 2020 following emailcommunications between Te-Awhi'O'Rangi and the registry officer aboutarrangements for the hearing. The registry officer advised that Mr Manuel was toappear and that Te-Awhi'O'Rangi could not represent him at the hearing. Theresponse was an email from Te-Awhi'O'Rangi to the effect she would "not be movingforward with the call and the allotted hearing for tomorrow" unless the correctionsnotified in her earlier email had been made. The earlier email stated that the case1 R v Manuel [2019] NZDC 13512.2 R v Manuel DC Palmerston North CRI-2018-054-003618, 24 July 2020.officer had not taken care when writing a notice of date of hearing; that she usedsymbols that are incorrect and was asked to correct all symbols as this would be seenas fraudulent processing of information.[10] I directed the registry officer to confine her communications with the partiesto those necessary for the purpose of facilitating the hearing at 10 am on 7 August2020. The Minute concluded: "If Mr Manuel, without reasonable excuse, does notappear, the application for habeas corpus will be deemed abandoned".[11] As it happens, Mr Manuel did not appear by VMR. Counsel for the respondentwas in the courtroom. The VMR connection between the courtroom and Mr Manuel'sresidence was successful. But, Mr Manuel did not appear. Instead, I understand Te-Awhi'O'Rangi asked for the name of the statute under which his appearance wasrequired.[12] Te-Awhi'O'Rangi apparently advised the Court registrar that the applicationwas made by her not Mr Manuel. After some 15 minutes of wasted time I directed theCourt registrar to advise the parties I would determine the application on the papers.The "application" for habeas corpus[13] The first point is that Mr Manuel is detained in which case the onus passes tothe respondent to establish the lawfulness of the detention.3[14] The question is whether the Judge's annotation that bail is to continue until15 October 2020 is sufficient evidence of the lawfulness of Mr Manuel's detention.[15] In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison the Court of Appeal stated:4[70] In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as therespondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation ... it wouldthen be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that thedocumentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particularcircumstances.3 Nottingham v Adern and others [2020] NZCA 144.4 Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison (No 2), [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA).[16] Mr Manuel is remanded on bail with conditions following decisions on 12 July2019, 24 July 2020, and Judge Smith's effective ruling that bail was to continue until15 October 2020. I say "effective" because that decision has not been recorded innotes following the hearing of a bail application, or a minute, or a ruling. Inevertheless regard it as authoritative. The direction is written by the Judge himselfand signed. It is also unequivocal. I do not regard the relative informality of thedelivery of the direction as detracting from its authority.[17] To the extent that the lawfulness of Mr Manuel's detention is based on achallenge to the sovereignty of Parliament or the jurisdiction of the courts it does notsucceed. Challenges to the authority of the courts on jurisdictional grounds based onMāori sovereignty have been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court.5Result[18] The application is dismissed._____________________________Karen Clark JSolicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington5 See for example Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156.