TE TANGATA WHENUA (WARREN) v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 189

TE TANGATA WHENUA (WARREN) v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OFCORRECTIONS [2017] NZSC 189 [13 December 2017]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 127/2017[2017] NZSC 189BETWEEN TE TANGATA WHENUA (AS THIRDPARTY AND PERSONALREPRESENTATIVE OF RHYSRICHARD (NGAHIWI) WARREN)ApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and OʼRegan JJCounsel: Applicant in personV McCall for RespondentJudgment: 13 December 2017JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant is serving a sentence of preventive detention. He seeks leave toappeal against a decision of the High Court dismissing his application forhabeas corpus.1 He unsuccessfully sought leave (under his then name Rhys Warren)to appeal a similar decision of the High Court dismissing a similar application forhabeas corpus earlier this year.2 Last year, his application for leave to appeal against1 Te Tangata Whenua (Warren) v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 2832(Williams J).2 Warren v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 [Warren (SC 2017)]; andWarren v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2017] NZHC 12 (Toogood J).a High Court decision dismissing his protest to the jurisdiction of the High Court totry him for the offences with which he was charged was dismissed.3[2] The applicant does not seek to challenge the warrant under which he wassentenced to preventive detention. Rather, he wishes to challenge the authority of thecourts on jurisdictional grounds based on Maori sovereignty. He also wishes to claimhe is "Te Tangata Whenua, in counsil (sic) with Te Tangata Whenua 3rd party tothe Corporate title, the juristic person a legal fiction the deceased estate RhysWARREN".[3] The proposed jurisdictional argument based on Maori sovereignty was alsomade in his application for leave to appeal against the earlier High Court judgmentand was described by this Court as having no prospect of success.4 Nothing haschanged in the nine months since that decision was delivered to change the argument'sprospects of success. A similar argument was rejected by this Court in the 2016 case:the Court recorded that similar arguments have been considered and rejected by thecourts on numerous occasions.5 The applicant's repetition of this argument despite itsprevious rejection amounts to an abuse of the Court's process.[4] The proposed argument that as Te Tangata Whenua he is not the same personas Rhys Warren also has no prospect of success.[5] The applicant claims he was prevented from taking part in the proposed hearingof his application in the High Court. This is disputed and, in any event, does notprovide any basis for concern about the legality of the applicant's detention.[6] Section 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 provides that the Court must not giveleave to appeal directly to this Court from a decision made in a Court other than theCourt of Appeal unless the leave criteria in s 74 are made out and there are exceptionalcircumstances justifying taking the proposed appeal directly to this Court. In this case,neither of these requirements is met. The application does not meet the criteria forleave to appeal in s 74 of the Senior Courts Act. It raises no matter of public3 Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156 [Warren (SC 2016)]; and R v Warren [2016] NZHC 2401 (Brewer J).4 Warren (SC 2017), above n 2, at [7].5 Warren (SC 2016), above n 3, at [4].importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. In addition, thereis nothing about the proposed appeal that suggests any exceptional circumstancesarise.[7] The application is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent