RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARREN also known as TE RANGATIRA TANGATA WHENUA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZSC 161
Leave to appeal was refused because the application repeated matters previously determined, the applicant is lawfully detained under the 11 August 2017 warrant, and the proposed appeal did not raise a question of public importance nor disclose a miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances warranting a direct...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] NZSC 161
- Parties
- Applicant: Rhys Richard Ngahiwi Warren aka Te Rangatira Tangata Whenua; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 23 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus / Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From Dismissal of Habeas Corpus
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Preventive Detention, Repeat Applications/res Judicata, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdictional Challenge
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rhys Richard Ngahiwi Warren aka Te Rangatira Tangata Whenua
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus / Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court From Dismissal of Habeas Corpus
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's detention is lawful under the 11 August 2017 warrant
- 2 Whether the habeas corpus application raises new questions of law or fact or is substantially the same as earlier applications
- 3 Whether the applicant's Māori sovereignty argument engages a question of public importance or discloses a miscarriage of justice
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the application repeated matters previously determined, the applicant is lawfully detained under the 11 August 2017 warrant, and the proposed appeal did not raise a question of public importance nor disclose a miscarriage of justice or exceptional circumstances warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARREN also known as TE RANGATIRA TANGATA WHENUA v CHIEFEXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZSC 161 [23 December 2020]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 115/2020[2020] NZSC 161BETWEEN RHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARRENalso known as TE RANGATIRA TANGATAWHENUAApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 23 December 2020JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant is serving a sentence of preventive detention for attemptedmurder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 This is pursuant toa warrant issued by Brewer J on 11 August 2017. An application by him for habeascorpus was dismissed by Powell J on 10 December 2020.2 He now seeks leave toappeal from that judgment.[2] The application for habeas corpus and the current application for leave toappeal are based on a Māori sovereignty argument. The application dismissed byPowell J was the applicant's third such application; the first having been brought while1 R v Warren [2017] NZHC 1913 (Brewer J).2 Re Warren [2020] NZHC 3264 [HC judgment].he was in custody awaiting his trial and the second after his conviction and sentence.3His application to Powell J was dismissed under s 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act2001 as raising substantially the same questions as were considered in his earlierapplications.4 The Judge also said that it was clear that the applicant was lawfullydetained under the August 2017 warrant.5[3] The submissions in support of the application for leave disclose no basis fordoubting the correctness of the judgment of Powell J. The proposed appeal does notraise a question of general or public importance and there is no appearance of amiscarriage of justice.6[4] The application for leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.3 Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12; and Warren v TheChief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 2832. In both cases, the applicantthen unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to this Court: Warren v The Chief Executive of theDepartment of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20; and Te Tangata Whenua (Warren) v The ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 189.4 HC judgment, above n 2, at [7].5 At [8].6 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2). Nor are there exceptional circumstances justifying taking theproposed appeal directly to this Court: s 75.