MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 339

MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 339 [7 March2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-488-000018[2018] NZHC 339IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU (ALSOKNOWN AS PERRY WAKENUIROA OFTHE WHANAU MOREHU)ApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 7 March 2018Appearances: The applicant in personM B Smith for RespondentJudgment: 7 March 2018JUDGMENT OF WYLIE JThis judgment was delivered by Justice WylieOn 7 March 2018 at 1.00pmPursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Solicitors:Crown Solicitors, WhangareiCopy to:P W Morehu[1] On 6 March 2018, the Registrar of the Court at Whangarei received in the mailan application for a writ of habeas corpus from Mr Perry Wakenuiroa Morehu.[2] The application is dated 22 February 2018. I do not know why it has beendelayed in reaching the Court. It does not purport to be an originating application asrequired by the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, but I have treated it as being suchapplication. I directed that it be served on the respondent – the Chief Executive of theDepartment of Corrections and on the Crown Law office.[3] Mr Morehu is currently detained in the Northland Regional CorrectionsFacility. He attended by AVL – although he asserted that he is entitled to attend inperson. The Chief Executive for the Department of Corrections and the Crown Lawoffice were represented by Mr Smith. I am grateful to him for appearing at shortnotice.[4] Mr Morehu's written papers are not easy to follow. He has annexed to hisapplication copies of notices he has served on the Prime Minister, the Minister ofJustice, the Commissioner of Police, the Prison Director of the Northland RegionalCorrections Facility and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Heclaimed that he no longer goes by the name Morehu, and that he is now PerryWakenuiroa of the whānau Morehu. As I understand it, Mr Morehu was essentiallyasserting a sovereignty-based argument. He asserts that he has withdrawn his consentto being governed, and that the laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him. Hetherefore argues that there is no longer any legal justification for his continueddetention.[5] Clearly these arguments are without merit. The Courts have consistently heldthat challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament, and the validity of acts of Parliament(whether in the context of Māori sovereignty arguments or any other challenge to thesovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament) cannot succeed.1[6] Under s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, it is for the respondent toestablish that the detention of an applicant is lawful.1 See, eg Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].[7] Mr Smith produced copies of the Warrants of Commitment for Mr Morehu.He was sentenced to three years and nine months' imprisonment by JudgeCunningham in the District Court at Auckland on 28 October 2015 for multipleoffences. The Warrants were issued under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and theyare signed by Judge Cunningham.[8] There is clearly lawful authority for Mr Morehu's continued detention. As aresult, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.[9] I record that I have issued this judgment as a reserve judgment, as Mr Morehuwould not stop talking, and allow me to issue an oral judgment. Rather, he maderepeated demands for me to produce a "contract" between him and Court, and for meto produce my warrant. After repeated requests by me to keep quiet so that I couldissue an oral judgment were ignored, I brought the hearing to a close, and advised thatthis reserve judgment would follow.________________________________Wylie J