RE LAKSHMAN [2023] NZHC 29

RE LAKSHMAN [2023] NZHC 29 [26 January 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2023-404-0130[2023] NZHC 29UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN LEAH MARIE LAKSHMANApplicantAND All Organisations and Individuals operatingUnder the "Crown" Entity as AuthorisingParties of the Government/s and Ministriesherein the country of residence and place ofassignment under review New Zealand,excluding the entity known as the "Crown".RespondentHearing: On the papersDate of judgment: 26 January 2023JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE JThis judgment was delivered by me on 26 January 2023 at 3.00pm.Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarCopy to:L M Lakshman[1] As duty judge during the Court's long vacation, I have Leah Lakshman's23 January 2023 application, brought against:All Organisations and Individuals operating under the "Crown" entity asAuthorising Parties of the Government/s and Ministries herein the country ofresidence and place of assignment under review New Zealand, excluding theentity known as the "Crown",styled "for a Writ of Habeas Corpus". A writ of habeas corpus is to "[restore] the libertyof persons unlawfully detained".1[2] If so, the application "must be given precedence over all other matters beforethe High Court unless a Judge of that court considers that the circumstances requireotherwise", "Judges and employees of the Ministry of Justice must ensure that everyapplication is disposed of as a matter of priority and urgency", and "[t]he Registrarmust allocate a date for the inter partes hearing of an application that is no later than3 working days after the date on which the application is filed".2[3] While contending she "[has] and [has] not been 'detained' unlawfully",Ms Lakshman's application is not an application for habeas corpus. Rather, shepursues the application in fulfilment of her contended "assigned duty to fullyconduct a fair trial and process of [New Zealand's] governing system to ensure theCrown Laws were being justifiably executed and followed ". In both that objectiveand its greater specificity,3 the application entirely is nonsensical. It is not required tobe given any precedence, priority, urgency or inter partes hearing, despite its filing asa habeas corpus application.[4] The application is instead a serious abuse of the process of the court —"improper use of [the court's] machinery";4 use of that process "for a purpose or in away significantly different from its ordinary and proper use"5 — which I am1 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 5.2 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 9.3 Including Ms Lakshman draws her authority from "a 'Great power', as a 'Sovereign Entity'residing in Aotearoa/New Zealand, through 'hereditary' assignment of the House of Lords,Security Council and Shadow Advisory through Special Signal Communications".4 Simon Goulding, DB Casson and William Blake Odgers Odgers on Civil Court Actions (24th ed,Sweet & Maxwell, London 1996) at [10.15] as cited in Commissioner of Inland Revenue vChesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [87].5 Attorney-General v Barker [2000] 1 FLR 759 (QBD) at 764.empowered to strike out at least "to protect public confidence in the administration ofjustice by refusing to tolerate serious abuses".6[5] The application is struck out and the proceeding is dismissed.—Jagose J6 O'Neill v Commissioner of Police [2022] NZCA 501 at [22]–[23].