MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1251

MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1251 [5 June2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHECIV-2019-488-000044[2019] NZHC 1251BETWEEN ROBIN DION LESLIE MARTINApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 5 June 2019Appearances: Applicant in person (via AVL)MB Smith for RespondentJudgment: 5 June 2019JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JThis judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 5 June 2019 at 3 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, Whangarei.Copy to: Applicant[1] Habeas corpus can be an important check on Executive power. But, theprocedure can also be misused.[2] In October 2016, Mr Martin argued he was unlawfully detained on burglarycharges because the charging document omitted one of his middle names. Muir Jconcluded there was "no reasonable argument" detention was unlawful.1 In Novemberthe same year, Mr Martin sought habeas corpus on the basis his birth certificate was afraud. Toogood J said there was "absolutely no merit in this application" and it was"a gross abuse of the Court's procedure".2 In December 2017, Mr Martin again soughthabeas corpus. By then, Mr Martin had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment forburglary. Mr Martin argued he had "withdrawn his consent to being governed, and the laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him". Wylie J dismissed the application,noting it was "without merit".3 Which brings me to today.[3] Mr Martin seeks habeas corpus. He has now served his sentence but facesanother burglary charge. On 26 April 2019, Judge N J Sainsbury declined him bail.Mr Martin's next appearance is on 25 June. Mr Martin accepts all this but contendsthe warrant of commitment—produced by the Crown—does not comply with r 11.11of the District Court Rules 2014. This is unsurprising, because it does not have to.Rule 11.11 is concerned with sealing judgments, and r 1.5(1) of the same rules makesclear these are directed at civil cases, not criminal matters.[4] Warrants of commitment are instead governed by s 168(4) of the CriminalProcedure Act 2011 and r 3.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012. The formerrequires the warrant identify the period of adjournment. The latter provides:3.5 Warrant to detain defendantA warrant for the detention of a defendant in a prison must include—(a) the section of the enactment under which the warrant is issued; and(b) the court issuing the warrant; and(c) the particulars of the person who is directed to detain the defendant; and1 Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2500 at [13].2 Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811 at [19].3 Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 3294 at [5].(d) the particulars of the defendant; and(e) the offence; and(f) a direction that the defendant be detained in a prison; and(g) the duration of the detention; and(h) a direction that the defendant be brought before the court when notifiedby the court to do so; and(i) the name and title of the person issuing the warrant; and(j) the date of issue of the warrant.[5] The warrant in relation to Mr Martin complies with these requirements. It isunnecessary to consider the savings provision.4[6] Mr Martin also argues his detention is unlawful because he does not consent.5This argument is unsustainable for obvious reasons.[7] The application is dismissed: Mr Martin's detention is lawful.[8] The Crown did not seek costs. Had it done so, I would have ordered themdespite the usual reluctance of Courts to do so. As I said earlier, this procedure can bemisused. Mr Martin has again misused it...Downs J4 Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 379.5 This is a terse summary of Mr Martin's oral argument, which was difficult to follow.