WARAHI v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZCA 587

WARAHI v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZCA 587 [23 November 2020]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA651/2020[2020] NZCA 587BETWEEN MAUI WARAHIAppellantAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 19 November 2020Court: Miller, Clifford and Collins JJCounsel: Appellant in personV McCall for RespondentJudgment: 23 November 2020 at 4.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Clifford J)[1] The appellant, Maui Warahi, also known — amongst other names — asJay Maui Wallace, appeals the refusal by Muir J on 4 November 2020 to grant him awrit of habeas corpus.1[2] Using the name Maui Warahi the appellant says he is not the personJay Maui Wallace and, moreover, that Maui Warahi is not subject to the laws of1 Warahi v Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2917.New Zealand, pursuant to which he is currently remanded in custody on variouscharges. Accordingly, contrary to the Judge's decision, that detention is unlawful,entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.[3] The appellant acknowledges that at birth he was given the name, and wassubsequently known as, Jay Maui Wallace. But, he says, he subsequently disclaimedthat name. Materials he filed for the purposes of this appeal included a copy of adocument entitled "Certified Copy of birth entry in the Māori Chief Registrar Office",recording the birth of "Maui Warahi" on 16 December 1974. Others comprise standardforms of a statutory declaration, an affidavit of identity, and a declaration of rights, allpremised on the assertion that the holder is Māori and not subject to the laws ofNew Zealand which authorise the appellant's detention.[4] The respondent, the Chief Executive, has placed before the Court a copy of awarrant to detain Jay Maui Wallace on charges of breach of conditions of intensivesupervision, assaulting a person, obtaining by deception and failing to answerDistrict Court bail dated 28 October 2020. That warrant is directed to every Constableand to the Manager of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility and authorisesJay Maui Wallace's detention until Wednesday 2 December, when he is to bepresented to the Manukau District Court at 11.45 am.[5] Mr Warahi's challenge to the prima facie authorisation of his detention thatwarrant provides is based on propositions of identity, jurisdiction and sovereignty thathe has, under a number of names, advanced on many occasions before.2[6] As to the specific issue of identity, in December 2016 this Court observed:3[9] We note in particular that there is no issue about the appellant'sidentity. He admits that the name Jay Wallace was given to him by his naturalparents at birth. He wishes to be known as Abdullah Maui Warahi and sayshe has taken steps through his Tribal Councils to achieve this. However, on2 See, for example, Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 585(where the appellant gave his name as "Maui Warahi (TM) beneficiary, sole flesh n Blood ofJay Wallace, Natural Person"); Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016]NZCA 602 ("Abdullah Maui Warahi"); and Wallace v Ministry of Justice [2011] NZCA 678 ("HeiRangatira J Maui Wallace").3 Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, above n 2.his own admission, Jay Maui Wallace and Abdullah Maui Warahi are one andthe same person.Those comments apply equally here.[7] As to the broader questions of jurisdiction and sovereignty, in decliningthe application of Jay Maui Wallace (also known as Abdullah Maui Warahi) to appealthat decision, the Supreme Court observed in February 2017:4[4] The applicant filed a number of documents in this Court in support ofhis application for leave, but none of these provided any basis for calling intoquestion the lawfulness of his detention. Rather, the documentation appearsto challenge the jurisdiction of the Courts over the applicant on Maorisovereignty grounds and assert that the applicant is himself sovereign andtherefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts. There is nothing in thesedocuments that provides any support for the applicant's assertions.[5] Similar arguments have been rejected by this Court in earlier cases.Again, those comments apply equally here.[8] Nothing in this application by Maui Warahi, otherwise known asJay Maui Wallace, therefore calls into question the legality of his detention.His appeal against the judgment of Muir J declining his application for a writ of habeascorpus is, therefore, dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent4 Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1.