MOKO PUNA TUA TAHI TURNER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZSC 83
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and did not challenge the validity of the produced warrant; the proposed arguments about native customary title do not produce the required exceptional circumstances.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZSC 83
- Parties
- Applicant: Moko Puna Tua Tahi Turner; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 3 September 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application; Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Following Criminal Conviction and Remand for Sentencing / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court (dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal, District Court Jurisdiction, Native Customary Title, Remand, Sentencing
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Moko Puna Tua Tahi Turner
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application; Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court Following Criminal Conviction and Remand for Sentencing / Application for Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court (dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted
- 2 Whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction because native customary title had not been extinguished
- 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify a direct appeal to the Supreme Court
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal to the Supreme Court and did not challenge the validity of the produced warrant; the proposed arguments about native customary title do not produce the required exceptional circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- No order as to costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MOKO PUNA TUA TAHI TURNER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS[2018] NZSC 83 [3 September 2018]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 64/2018[2018] NZSC 83BETWEEN MOKO PUNA TUA TAHI TURNERApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJCounsel: Applicant in personA M Powell and J B Watson for RespondentJudgment: 3 September 2018JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B No order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant has been remanded in custody for sentencing followingconviction for assault with intent to injure contrary to s 193 of the Crimes Act 1961.He seeks leave to appeal to this Court against a decision of the High Court dismissinghis application for habeas corpus.1[2] The primary argument the applicant wishes to make is that the District Courthad no jurisdiction.2 To illustrate the proposed approach, he wishes to argue there is1 Turner v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 1948 (Fitzgerald J).2 The applicant also says proper procedures have not been followed in considering his claim.no evidence native customary title has been extinguished in relation to certain landand that this affects the jurisdiction of the District Court in this case.[3] Where leave to appeal directly to this Court is sought the Court must not grantleave unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying taking the proposed appealdirectly to this Court.3 As Fitzgerald J noted, the applicant does not raise any issue asto the validity of the warrant which has been produced.4 In these circumstances, thereis nothing about the proposed appeal that suggests any exceptional circumstances ariseto justify a direct appeal.[4] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent3 This in addition to the usual criteria: Senior Courts Act 2016, s 75; and Supreme Court Act 2003,s 14.4 The Judge also referred to ss 14(1A) and 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.