MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 3294

MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 3294 [22December 2017]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHECIV-2017-488-000143[2017] NZHC 3294IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN ROBIN DION LESLIE MARTINApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 22 December 2017Appearances: The applicant in personJ Simpson for RespondentJudgment: 22 December 2017ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE JSolicitors:Meredith Connell, AucklandCopy to:R D L Martin[1] On 20 December 2017, the applicant, Mr Martin, filed a document headed"Memorandum in Respect for a Writ of Habeas Corpus" with the Registry with theCourt in Whangarei. The document is dated 9 December 2017.[2] It was brought to my attention – in my capacity as duty Judge – on the sameday. Notwithstanding the wording of the document and the fact that it did not purportto be an originating application, I nevertheless treated it as a being an application fora writ of habeas corpus and directed that it should be served on the respondent – theChief Executive of the Department of Corrections and on the Crown Law office. Idirected that the matter would be heard today at 10am.[3] Mr Martin has attended by AVL. The Crown is represented by Mr Simpsonthrough the Crown's solicitor's office in Auckland.[4] Mr Martin's written papers are not easy to follow. Nor were his oral arguments.As I understand it, he is essentially asserting a sovereignty-based argument. He saysthat he has withdrawn his consent to being governed, and that the laws of New Zealandno longer apply to him. He therefore argues that the Warrant of Commitment underwhich he is currently held in custody at the Northland Region Corrections Facility, isno longer authority for his lawful detention.[5] Clearly this argument is without merit. The Courts have consistently held thatchallenges 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 the applicant is lawful.[7] Mr Simpson has produced a copy of the Warrant of Commitment for MrMartin. He was sentenced to two years and eight months' imprisonment by JudgeSingh on 2 May 2017 for five charges of burglary. A copy of the Warrant, issued under1 See, eg Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and signed by Judge Singh, has been made availableto me.[8] There is clearly lawful authority for Mr Martin's continued detention. Hisapplication for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed._____________________________Wylie J