Morehu v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 1430 (14 June 2018)

Last Updated: 28 July 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-001129 [2018] NZHC 1430

UNDER THE	Habeas Corpus Act 2001
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
BETWEEN	PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	14 June 2018
Appearances:	The Applicant in Person J Trezise for the Respondent
Judgment:	14 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 June 2018 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

.............................................................................. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Party:

The Applicant

PERRY WAKENUIROA MOREHU v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 1430 [14 June 2018]

[1] On Tuesday, 12 June 2018, the Registrar received by postal mail an application for a writ of habeas corpus from Mr Perry-Wakenuiroa Morehu. The application is dated 31 May 2018. It records 31 May 2018 as the date of filing, which is incorrect.

[2] Mr Morehu made an application for habeas corpus on similar grounds in February/March 2018. That application was filed in the Court at Whangarei. The application was dismissed in a reserved judgment of Wylie J dated 7 March 2018.¹

[3] The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and the Crown Law Office have been served and have filed a notice of opposition to the application.

[4] Mr Morehu is currently detained at the Auckland South Corrections Facility.² Mr Morehu attended by AVL at my direction, given the shortage of time to hear an application such as this.

[5] As with Mr Morehu’s previous application, his argument for the issue of the writ appears to be based upon an attempt to nullify (or not recognise) the law under which he was imprisoned and is currently detained. It is a sovereignty-based argument. He asserts that he has withdrawn his consent to being governed, and that the laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him. He therefore argues that there is no longer any legal justification for his continued detention.

[6] I repeat the finding made by Wylie J, which remains the law. Arguments such as those raised by Mr Morehu cannot succeed. The Courts have consistently held that challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament and the validity of Acts of Parliament cannot succeed.³ Section 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, expressly provides that in determining an application for habeas corpus, a conviction cannot be called into question.

[7] The respondent has to establish, on an application for habeas corpus, that the detention of an applicant is lawful.⁴ The respondent has done so in this case. I have

¹ Morehu v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 339.

2. At the time of the judgment of Wylie J, he was detained at the Northland Regional Corrections Facility.

³ See, eg Brooker v R [2014] NZCA 436 at [4].

⁴ Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).

been provided with a copy of a warrant of commitment for sentence of imprisonment directed to Mr Morehu.⁵ The warrant records that Mr Morehu was convicted on 28 October 2015 on three charges of burglary and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years, nine months in the Auckland District Court commencing on 28 October 2015. The warrant was issued under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and signed by District Court Judge Cunningham on 28 October 2015.

[8] The statutory release date of the sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the period spent in custody on remand is 1 November 2018. That date is over four months from now.

[9] I am therefore satisfied that there is lawful authority for Mr Morehu’s continued detention. As a result, his application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.









---------------------------------------------
Hinton J

5. Wylie J referred to warrants of commitment. The Crown confirmed there is one warrant relating to three offences.