Blackmore v Police [2018] NZHC 3295 (13 December 2018)

Last Updated: 19 December 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2018-488-135 [2018] NZHC 3295

UNDER	the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
BETWEEN	KENNETH RAYMOND GALLERY BLACKMORE Plaintiff
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE KAIKOHE Defendant

On the papers
Representation:	RNH Tamihere on behalf of KRG Blackmore
Judgment:	13 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2018 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BLACKMORE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE KAIKOHE [2018] NZHC 3295 [13 December 2018]

Application for a writ of habeas corpus

[1] Yesterday afternoon, Wednesday 12 December 2018, the Registrar delivered to me what appears to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Robin NH Tamihere, seeking the release of the named plaintiff, Kenneth Raymond Gallery Blackmore from detention.

[2] The application comprises 11 pages, most of which is gibberish. I inferred, however, that Mr Blackmore had been imprisoned after being convicted on firearms charges by Judge CJ Field in the District Court at Kaikohe. I presumed from the address shown in the entitulement that Mr Blackmore was being held in the Northland Region Corrections Facility at Ngawha pursuant to a warrant issued by the District Court.

[3] Later in the day, I issued a Minute to Mr Tamihere and to the Crown Solicitor at Whangārei seeking further information. I have now received a further communication from Mr Tamihere and, from the Crown Solicitor, copies of warrants and other orders issued by the District Court. I am grateful to them for responding promptly.

[4] Mr Tamihere's response, which he says he submits as "Customary Law Advocate for Rakaihoea Paa Kooti and Te Kooti Papatuanuku (Taneatua)", refutes my assumption that the application for the writ of habeas corpus invoked the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. He says that the application was made out under the common law of England. Mr Tamihere also asked for an explanation why his "common law Writ was not placed in front of the Chief Justice instead of a Justice as all of our common law writs thus far have been dealt with by a Chief Justice."

[5] Mr Tamihere also objects to my description of the content of the application as "gibberish", a term I used in the Minute. To illustrate my reasons for describing the content as inarticulate jargon or obscure and pretentious verbiage, I set out only the first seven of the 54 paragraphs in the application:

1. Kenneth Blackmore is restrained of his free liberty being unlawfully imprisoned in breach of Due Process of Law Statute

1368 Imperial Act 3 Date of assent 1 May 1368 3 "None shall be

put to answer without due process of law."

2. Blackmore contends he was framed by the NZ Police and Police associates who aided and abetted him (i.e., supplied him with the shotgun and ammunition) in the commission of the crime namely firearms charges and has been denied due process.

3. C J Field as an Administrative CLERK, committed fraud, extortion, and abuse of process, violated the rules of natural justice, usurped jurisdictions to render void judgments obtained by fraud and Orders obtained by fraud, denied due process harass and abuse Blackmore's rights, and violated s. 25(a), s. 27(1) and s. 19 of NZBORA. The due process of Law statute 1368 Imperial Act Date of assent 1 May 1368 states - "None shall be put to answer

without due process of law."

4. CJ Field acting administratively was not a Judge but in fact an Administrative CLERK the Administrative Court was Coram non Judice, not before a Judge, and lacked jurisdiction. A violation of the rules of natural justice. Refer to site Marshalsea[1572] EngR 412; , 10 Coke 68; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall 335,351. Manning v. Ketcham, 58 F.2d 948.

5. CJ Field acting as an Administrative officer is incompetent to

receive grants of judicial power from the legislature, CJ Field's acts in attempting to exercise such powers are necessary nullities. Burns v. Sup., Ct., SF, 140 Cal. 1.

6. C J Field acting as an Administrative CLERK in his private capacity for the agency aka NZ Police had no authority to issue judicial

Warrants, Judgments or Orders. C J Field has acted FRAUDULENTLY by usurping rules and policies¹ to render a void judgment obtained by fraud.²

7. C J Field and an earlier Administrative officer acting administratively issued individually unlawful CAPIAS documents to imprison Blackmore. Blackmore asserts these CAPIAS documents to be in breach of his constitutional rights, due process and natural justice.

1. To The Lighthose [sic] written by Justice Susan Glazebrook When a Judge violates natural justice he must usurp rules and policies to render judgment.
2. Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture

Ltd [2012] NZSC 94, [2013] 1 NZLR 804 ("Redcliffe"). The

Court concluded that Redcliffe indicates that a challenge to a concluded judgment that has been the subject of an appellate judgment should not be mounted in the trial court except in the case of a judgment obtained by fraud which is recognized as a special exception.

....

[6] The information provided by the Crown Solicitor includes a warrant to detain Kenneth Raymond Gallery Blackmore, addressed to every Constable and the Manager of the Northland Region Corrections Facility. The warrant is dated at the Kaikohe District Court on 20 November 2018, and was signed by CJ Field, District Court Judge.

[7] It identifies that Mr Blackmore was, on that day, convicted of two firearms charges under ss 45 and 51 respectively of the Arms Act 1983; that the hearing had been adjourned; and that Mr Blackmore had been remanded in custody for the period of the adjournment.

[8] The warrant directed the delivery of Mr Blackmore to the prison at Spring Hill Corrections Facility where he was directed to be detained and to be brought back to the Kaikohe District Court on 18 December 2018 at 10.00 am.

Discussion and decision

[9] Although this Court has certain inherent and implied powers, including those derived from the common law, section 7(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides that applications to the Court for writs of habeas corpus must be brought in this Court by originating application in the manner provided by the High Court Rules 2016. Any Judge of this Court may exercise the Court’s jurisdiction under the Act. Section 14(2) of the Act further provides that a Judge is not entitled, in dealing with a habeas corpus application, to call into question a conviction of an offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction or a ruling as to bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction.¹ It appears from the warrant that Mr Blackmore has been convicted of the offences with which he was charged and it is clear he was refused bail and remanded in custody. His remedy, including so far as the refusal of bail is concerned, was to appeal to this Court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, but he has not done so.

[10] I am satisfied that this is not a legitimate application for a writ of habeas corpus in that the Court has no power to deal with it. In its purpose and form, it is an abuse of the process of the Court. While the Registrar acted properly in bringing the

¹ Section 14(2)(a) and (b).

application to my attention, the circumstances are such that the application should not have been accepted for filing.

[11] I direct the Registrar to remove the application and other documents from the Court record.

...................................

Toogood J