WILSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 422
The detention was lawful because the District Court refused bail and a remand warrant was issued; s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act prevents habeas corpus from calling into question that refusal of bail, and the applicant's sovereign 'living man' jurisdictional claim is legally unsound, therefore the habeas corpus...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 422
- Parties
- Applicant: Saan Huia Wilson; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 March 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application Under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 / Hearing and Oral Judgment (application Refused)
- Outcome
- Application for writ of habeas corpus refused
- Legal Topics
- Lawfulness of Detention, Challenge to Refusal of Bail, Sovereign Citizen / 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
Saan Huia Wilson
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application Under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 / Hearing and Oral Judgment (application Refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's detention is lawful
- 2 Whether a habeas corpus application may challenge a District Court's refusal of bail
- 3 Whether a 'sovereign living man' jurisdictional claim can invalidate detention
Ratio Decidendi
The detention was lawful because the District Court refused bail and a remand warrant was issued; s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act prevents habeas corpus from calling into question that refusal of bail, and the applicant's sovereign 'living man' jurisdictional claim is legally unsound, therefore the habeas corpus application must be refused.
Court Disposition
Application for writ of habeas corpus refused
Orders
- Application for a writ of habeas corpus refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WILSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 422 [8March 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDROTORUA REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHECIV 2021-463-16[2021] NZHC 422UNDER THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT 2001 and relatedlegislationIN THE MATTER OF An application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN SAAN HUIA WILSONApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 8 March 2021Appearances: S H Wilson for the Applicant, in person (by audio link)A J Gordon for the Respondent (by audio link)Judgment: 8 March 2021ORAL JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J[1] Mr Wilson is presently detained by the respondent, the Department ofCorrections. Mr Wilson applies for a writ of habeas corpus.1[2] The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to enable the applicant, in this caseMr Wilson, to challenge the validity of his or her detention in custody.[3] The respondent has supplied to this court various documents to establish thatMr Wilson's detention is lawful. These show that Mr Wilson was recently arrested onfour charges. Mr Wilson applied for bail. His application was declined by the DistrictCourt on 20 January 2021. Mr Wilson has not appealed that decision.[4] On 12 February 2021 Mr Wilson appeared again in the District Court, and wasremanded in custody until 7 April 2021. The respondent has provided this court witha copy of the warrant to detain Mr Wilson until 7 April 2021 that was issued by JudgeHollister-Jones following that appearance.[5] Mr Wilson's arrest and the refusal of bail plainly make his detention lawful.The effect of s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 is that Mr Wilson may not, onthis application, call into question the refusal to grant bail.[6] Mr Wilson's application does not provide any basis for calling into questionthe lawfulness of his detention. His application appears to assert that he is a sovereign"living man" beyond the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts. Such an assertion islegally unsound.2[7] For these reasons I refuse Mr Wilson's application.____________________________Campbell J1 This hearing was supposed to be conducted by VMR (Virtual Meeting Room) but the video didnot work, Mr Wilson and Ms Gordon agreed to proceed with audio only.2 Wallace v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 1; Martin v ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2811; Meenken v The Family Court atMasterton [2017] NZHC 2103.