An application by Warren (Writ of Habeas Corpus) [2020] NZHC 3264

An application by Warren (Writ of Habeas Corpus) [2020] NZHC 3264 [10 December 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECIV-2020-463-89[2020] NZHC 3264UNDER Habeas Corpus Act 2001RE: An application byRHYS RICHARD NGAHIWI WARRENApplicantOn the papers: At RotoruaJudgment: 10 December 2020JUDGMENT OF POWELL JThis judgment was delivered by me on 10 December 2020 at 5 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:Copy to: R Warrenc/o Hawkes Bay Regional Prison, Mangaroa[1] Rhys Richard Ngahiwi Warren has applied for a writ of habeas corpus.[2] Mr Warren, who also appears to refer to himself as Te Rangatira TangataWhenua, and who is currently detained in the Hawkes Bay prison, filed his applicationin the High Court at Napier. For reasons that are not clear Mr Warren's documentshave now been transferred to the High Court at Rotorua and placed before me in mycapacity as Duty Judge.[3] Having looked through the documents provided by Mr Warren it is clear thathis application for habeas corpus cannot succeed, and instead is a clear abuse ofprocess.[4] First, Mr Warren has raised a number of matters by which he asserts that he isnot subject to the laws of New Zealand. Mr Warren has in fact previously raisedsubstantially the same grounds in two earlier applications for habeas corpus. The firstwas filed at a time when he was awaiting a trial on two counts of attempted murderand five counts of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer. This firstapplication was dismissed by Toogood J, who not only rejected the grounds advancedby Mr Warren but concluded that Mr Warren's application was "not a genuineapplication under the Habeas Corpus Act but is merely an abuse of the Court'sprocess".1 Instead as Toogood J noted, Mr Warren was in fact detained as a result ofa warrant issued by Brewer J on 15 June 2016 pending his trial.2 An application forleave to appeal the decision of Toogood J, to the Supreme Court was dismissed, theSupreme Court noting:3 Mr Warren does not challenge the warrant under which he is detained. Hischallenge is rather a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament. Similarchallenges have been rejected by this Court. Any appeal therefore would haveno prospect of success.(citations omitted)[5] Mr Warren's second application was made after being found guilty at trial onthe two charges of attempted murder, using a firearm against a law enforcement officer1 Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12 at [2]-[4].2 At [5].3 Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 at [7].and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, for which he was sentencedto preventive detention.4 This second application came before Williams J and wasdismissed after Mr Warren refrained from participating in the hearing.5[6] As Williams J noted, the warrant under which Mr Warren was detained afterhaving been sentenced to preventive detention is a warrant issued by Brewer J on11 August 2017.6 The Supreme Court again declined leave to appeal, noting thistime:7The applicant does not seek to challenge the warrant under which he wassentenced to preventive detention. Rather, he wishes to challenge theauthority of the courts on jurisdictional grounds based on Maori sovereignty.He also wishes to claim he is "Te Tangata Whenua, in counsil (sic) with TeTangata Whenua 3rd party to the Corporate title, the juristic person a legalfiction the deceased estate Rhys WARREN".The proposed jurisdictional argument based on Maori sovereignty was alsomade in his application for leave to appeal against the earlier High Courtjudgment and was described by this Court as having no prospect of success.Nothing has changed in the nine months since that decision was delivered tochange the argument's prospects of success. A similar argument was rejectedby this Court in the 2016 case: the Court recorded that similar arguments havebeen considered and rejected by the courts on numerous occasions. Theapplicant's repetition of this argument despite its previous rejection amountsto an abuse of the Court's process.The proposed argument that as Te Tangata Whenua he is not the same personas Rhys Warren also has no prospect of success.(citations omitted)[7] Given these earlier proceedings and the issues addressed it is absolutely clearthat the present application is precluded by s 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001,which prevents an applicant raising "substantially the same questions as thoseconsidered by the Court when the earlier application was refused".8 As a result and as4 R v Warren [2017] NZHC 1913.5 Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 2832.6 At [5].7 Te Tangata Whenua (Warren) v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017]NZSC 189 at [2]-[4].8 See Whichman v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZHC 747 where vanBohemen J noted that it would have been open to him to have declined Mr Whichman's habeascorpus application pursuant to s 15(1), in circumstances where Mr Whichman continued tochallenge the validity of the warrants under which he was detained as each warrant incorrectlyrecorded he had been "convicted and discharged". Even though the challenge before vanBohemen J related to a fresh warrant, his Honour was satisfied he could have relied on s 15(1).was found by the Supreme Court when it disposed of Mr Warren's second habeascorpus application, "[Mr Warren's] repetition of this argument despite its previousrejection amounts to an abuse of the Court's process".9[8] Even if this were not the case, it is clear that Mr Warren remains validlydetained pursuant to the warrant issued by Brewer J on 11 August 2017 and thereforehas no basis to challenge his detention.10[9] Mr Warren's application for habeas corpus is accordingly dismissed._______________________________Powell J9 At [3].10 Section 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides that a judge cannot call into question aconviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, as is reflected in Misiuk v ChiefExecutive of Department of Corrections [2011] NZCA 318 at [7]. For the sake of completion, Ialso note that ss 37 and 38 of the Corrections Act 2004 outline the effect of a valid warrant.