WILSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 327

WILSON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 327 [20 July 2021]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA219/2021[2021] NZCA 327BETWEEN SAAN-HUIA WILSONAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICEFirst RespondentTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSSecond RespondentCourt: Gilbert and Goddard JJCounsel: Appellant in personNo appearance for First RespondentG M Taylor and J B Watson for Second RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)20 July 2021 at 10.00 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe appeal is struck out.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Goddard J)The appeal before this Court[1] Mr Wilson has filed a document in this Court on 19 April 2021 in which heseeks "remedy to writ of habeas corpus filed with the High Court at Auckland on31st March 2021 and the 7th April 2021".[2] The grounds of appeal are described as "writ of habeas corpus adsubjiciendum". In the document Mr Wilson describes himself as "the living breathingman" and says that his detention is unlawful on various grounds, including that hisbirth certificate was "used as a security and evidence of ownership of the overseasperson and legal fiction/corporation SAAN-HUIA WILSON".[3] The decisions of the High Court that Mr Wilson seeks to challenge are minutesof Lang J dated 31 March 2021 and 8 April 2021.1 In the minute of 31 March 2021the Judge records that Mr Wilson had sought to file an application seeking the issueof a writ of habeas corpus, however:[2] The document Mr Wilson has filed is plainly not an application fora writ of habeas corpus. It does not establish that Mr Wilson is unlawfullydetained in any way so as to engage the habeas corpus procedure.[4] The Judge directed that the Registrar should return Mr Wilson's documents tohim as soon as practicable.[5] The minute of 8 April 2021 records that Mr Wilson had sought to file a furtherapplication purportedly seeking the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The Judgerecorded that, like the document filed on 31 March 2021, the latest document was: plainly not an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Again, it does notestablish that Mr Wilson is unlawfully detained in any way, so as to engagethe habeas corpus procedure.[6] The Judge directed the Registrar to return Mr Wilson's documents to him.Should the appeal be struck out?[7] As I recorded in a minute dated 21 May 2021, the document received bythis Court on 19 April 2021 does not appear to identify any basis on which a writ ofhabeas corpus could be justified, or any basis on which the challenged decisions of theHigh Court in the minutes dated 31 March 2021 and 8 April 2021 could bechallenged.2 Mr Wilson was given 10 working days' notice of the Court's intention to1 Wilson v Police HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-531, 31 March 2021; and Wilson v PoliceHC Auckland CIV-2021-404-531, 8 April 2021.2 Wilson v Police CA219/2021, 21 May 2021.consider making an order under r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005striking out the appeal on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise anabuse of the process of the Court. Mr Wilson was given until 18 June 2021 to filesubmissions in relation to whether the appeal should be struck out under r 44A.[8] Mr Wilson filed seven pages of handwritten submissions, which reached theCourt on 21 June 2021. They are discursive and rambling. Mr Wilson repeats thereferences to himself as a "living breathing man of flesh and blood a sovereignhuman", refers to the Securities Act 1978, and appears to suggest that hisbirth certificate has been treated as a certificate of a security, contrary to theprohibition in s 98 of the Crimes Act 1961 on dealing in slaves. He says he has been: enslaved in debt bondage by New Zealand Police on the grounds thatNZ Police charging documents have been issued in the name of the legalfiction/person created and owned by the state the DEBTOR SAAN-HUIAWILSON, but served on the living man a sovereign human and secured partySaan-Huia Wilson.[9] Mr Wilson says there is nothing frivolous in what he claims. He says his appealis "vexatious maybe? But that I would expect from a living man with a heart andfeelings".[10] There is nothing in Mr Wilson's submissions that reveals any basis on whicha writ of habeas corpus could be justified. Nor is there anything in these submissionswhich identifies a basis on which the High Court minutes could be challenged onappeal.[11] The appeal is plainly frivolous and vexatious, and an abuse of the process ofthe Court. The respondent should not be required to address it. The Court's timeshould not be spent on the appeal, to the detriment of other meritorious appeals thatawait a hearing.Result[12] The appeal is struck out under r 44A(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent