PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 1430

PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS[2018] NZHC 1430 [14 June 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-001129[2018] NZHC 1430UNDER THE Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER OF an application for a Writ of Habeas CorpusBETWEEN PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHUApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 14 June 2018Appearances: The Applicant in PersonJ Trezise for the RespondentJudgment: 14 June 2018JUDGMENT OF HINTON JThis judgment was delivered by me on 14 June 2018 at 3.30 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Meredith Connell, AucklandParty:The Applicant[1] On Tuesday, 12 June 2018, the Registrar received by postal mail an applicationfor a writ of habeas corpus from Mr Perry-Wakenuiroa Morehu. The application isdated 31 May 2018. It records 31 May 2018 as the date of filing, which is incorrect.[2] Mr Morehu made an application for habeas corpus on similar grounds inFebruary/March 2018. That application was filed in the Court at Whangarei. Theapplication was dismissed in a reserved judgment of Wylie J dated 7 March 2018.1[3] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Crown LawOffice have been served and have filed a notice of opposition to the application.[4] Mr Morehu is currently detained at the Auckland South Corrections Facility.2Mr Morehu attended by AVL at my direction, given the shortage of time to hear anapplication such as this.[5] As with Mr Morehu's previous application, his argument for the issue of thewrit appears to be based upon an attempt to nullify (or not recognise) the law underwhich he was imprisoned and is currently detained. It is a sovereignty-basedargument. He asserts that he has withdrawn his consent to being governed, and thatthe laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him. He therefore argues that there is nolonger any legal justification for his continued detention.[6] I repeat the finding made by Wylie J, which remains the law. Arguments suchas those raised by Mr Morehu cannot succeed. The Courts have consistently held thatchallenges to the sovereignty of Parliament and the validity of Acts of Parliamentcannot succeed.3 Section 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, expressly providesthat in determining an application for habeas corpus, a conviction cannot be called intoquestion.[7] The respondent has to establish, on an application for habeas corpus, that thedetention of an applicant is lawful.4 The respondent has done so in this case. I have1 Morehu v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 339.2 At the time of the judgment of Wylie J, he was detained at the Northland Regional CorrectionsFacility.3 See, eg Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].4 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).been provided with a copy of a warrant of commitment for sentence of imprisonmentdirected to Mr Morehu.5 The warrant records that Mr Morehu was convicted on28 October 2015 on three charges of burglary and sentenced to imprisonment for aterm of three years, nine months in the Auckland District Court commencing on28 October 2015. The warrant was issued under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 andsigned by District Court Judge Cunningham on 28 October 2015.[8] The statutory release date of the sentence of imprisonment, taking into accountthe period spent in custody on remand is 1 November 2018. That date is overfour months from now.[9] I am therefore satisfied that there is lawful authority for Mr Morehu'scontinued detention. As a result, his application for a writ of habeas corpus isdismissed.---------------------------------------------Hinton J5 Wylie J referred to warrants of commitment. The Crown confirmed there is one warrant relatingto three offences.