TE AMO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1880

TE AMO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1880 [2 August2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2019-404-001534[2019] NZHC 1880UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of Habeas CorpusBETWEEN TERRINA ANN TE AMOApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 2 August 2019Appearances: Applicant in person (via AVL)R W Belcher for the respondentJudgment: 2 August 2019ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER JParty/Solicitors:The applicantMeredith Connell, Auckland[1] On 31 July 2019, Ms Terrina Te Amo made what I interpret to be an applicationfor habeas corpus. She says she has been through due process in the District Courtand she originally intended to appeal to the High Court. She also wishes to pursue ahabeas corpus application. She says she has been unlawfully detained and held at awomen's prison against her wishes. She references He Whakaputanga of 1835 andpurports to proclaim customary law. She does not agree she is the person who shouldhave been arrested. Implicitly, she rejects the jurisdiction of the Court, though sheapplies to the Court.[2] The courts have consistently rejected challenges to their jurisdiction such asthat raised by Ms Te Amo.1 It is misconceived in terms of New Zealand law. So isthe distinction between a legal and natural person Ms Te Amo appears to advance. Iam bound to exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court and apply the law of NewZealand. The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides for restoring the liberty of those whoare unlawfully detained. Under s 14, I must enquire into the matters of fact and lawclaimed to justify the detention and, if the defendant fails to establish detention islawful, I must grant a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the release of the detained personfrom detention.[3] The Department of Corrections has provided me with relevant documentation.Ms Te Amo is serving a sentence of two months' imprisonment imposed by Judge TR Ingram in the District Court at Tauranga on 23 July 2019 for a range of offencesincluding assaulting and resisting police and wilful damage. She is currently detainedat Auckland Region Women's Corrections Facility at Manukau. I have seen a validwarrant of commitment dated 23 July 2019 which I am satisfied demonstrates that MsTe Amo was lawfully imprisoned. Accordingly, I decline the application for a writ ofhabeas corpus. Ms Te Amo, if you wish to pursue an appeal of your conviction orsentence that will have to be done separately.Palmer J1 See, for example, Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.