MAUI WARAHI aka WALLACE J v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 3059
Because the filed documents contained no allegations that could justify the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and, under s14(1A), the Court may refuse applications that are not the appropriate procedure, the purported application was an abuse of process and was struck out.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 3059
- Parties
- Applicant: Maui Warahi aka Wallace J; Defendant: Chief Executive of Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 November 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment on the Papers; Application Struck Out
- Outcome
- Application struck out
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Strike Out, Statutory Interpretation, Filing Requirements
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Maui Warahi aka Wallace J
Applicant
Chief Executive of Department of Corrections
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment on the Papers; Application Struck Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the materials filed constituted a proper application for a writ of habeas corpus
- 2 Whether the High Court may refuse to issue a writ under s14(1A) where an application is not the appropriate procedure
- 3 Whether assertions of 'sovereign being' defeat the Court's jurisdiction or amount to an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
Because the filed documents contained no allegations that could justify the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and, under s14(1A), the Court may refuse applications that are not the appropriate procedure, the purported application was an abuse of process and was struck out.
Court Disposition
Application struck out
Orders
- Application for a writ of habeas corpus struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MAUI WARAHI aka WALLACE J v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021]NZHC 3059 [11 November 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2021-404-2092[2021] NZHC 3059BETWEEN MAUI WARAHI aka WALLACE JApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENTOF CORRECTIONSDefendantJudgment:(On the papers)11 November 2021JUDGMENT OF BREWER J[1] Mr Jay Maui Wallace is an inmate at Ngawha Prison.[2] On 3 November 2021, Mr Wallace emailed documents to the registry whichinclude, midway in the first page, the following words:Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus[3] The registry accepted the documents for filing.[4] In fact, there is no application. The handwritten portions of the documents dono more than reproduce portions of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). There areno allegations at all.[5] There is a printed page with definitions of two expressions in Latin and areference to the Interpretation Act 1999.[6] There is also a statutory declaration of identity and an affidavit of identitywhich fit the "sovereign being" model that the Court is well familiar with.[7] I infer that if the documents actually applied for a writ of habeas corpus, theprincipal ground might be deduced from the following passage of the affidavit ofidentity:That the state has no legal jurisdiction or sovereign authority justified in originto hear this matter.[8] Section 14(1A) of Act provides:Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issueof the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention ofthe detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—(a) (b) an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not theappropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by theapplicant.[9] I consider that the documents filed by Mr Wallace do not raise any matter towhich a writ of habeas corpus could respond. An application for the issue of a writ ofhabeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering a matter where noallegations are made by the applicant going to the jurisdiction of the Court under theAct.[10] If my inferred allegation (the natural sovereignty lack of jurisdiction point) isthe one Mr Wallace wishes to advance, then it would be an abuse of the process of theCourt to consider it further.[11] The application, if that is what it is, is struck out.________________________________Brewer J