Martin (aka Smith) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 980 (7 May 2018)

Last Updated: 15 May 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CIV-2018-463-000047 [2018] NZHC 980

IN THE MATTER	of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
BETWEEN	GEOFFREY MARTIN (also known as GEOFFREY MARTIN SMITH) Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	7 May 2018
Appearances:	Applicant in person CH Macklin and C Harvey for Respondent
Judgment:	7 May 2018
Reasons:	8 May 2018

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 May 2018 at 3.00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 980 [8 May 2018]

The application before the Court and the course of the hearing

[1] On Friday 4 May 2018, an application purporting to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (“the Act”), was filed in this Registry of the Court. It sought the immediate discharge and release from custody and detention of “Geoffrey Martin (who may be called by another name).” The intituling of the application suggested that the applicant was being held in custody at Rimutaka Prison. With the application was an unsworn document described as an affidavit in support. It was purportedly signed by “Geoffrey-Martin” and “Geoffrey Martin Smith” over a seal reading:

FIAT JUSTITIA RUAT COELUM

Seal of William Henry

[2] Consistently with s 9(3) of the Act, the Registrar arranged a fixture for the hearing of the application at 2.15pm yesterday, Monday 7 May 2018 and arranged for Mr Smith to appear via audio-visual link from Rimutaka Prison.

[3] Counsel for the respondent filed a notice of opposition, submissions in opposition to the application and a bundle of authorities on which they relied. Mr Smith said that copies of the submissions and only one of the supporting judgments were delivered to him an hour before the hearing. I offered Mr Smith an adjournment of the hearing so that all of the material could be provided to him. He declined that opportunity, so I read to him the grounds of opposition, which were that he is lawfully detained at Rimutaka Prison awaiting sentence in the Manukau District Court on 1 June 2018 at 10.00 am.

[4] Mr Smith said he heard what I had said. He also confirmed to me that he did not oppose an order substituting the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections as the correct respondent in place of the Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison. An order to that effect was made accordingly.

[5] Mr Smith asked me to hear representations on his behalf from a man named William Henry who was sitting in the body of the Court, behind counsel, with another unidentified person. Mr Smith told me he had given Mr Henry power of attorney and
that Mr Henry had signed the application and the supporting unsworn document on his behalf.

[6] After I heard from Mr Henry, briefly, it was apparent that he was not in a position to provide the Court with relevant and helpful information or submissions. He sought first to make an inquiry about counsel for the respondent under s 5 of the Secret Commissions Act 1910. When I told him the Court did not need to hear about that, Mr Henry said:

Well, I believe they’ve come in here to represent the two parties, that they’re representing one party. Now we have a document here, a certificate, from Ministry of Births Deaths and Marriages – and approved by Foreign Affairs in New Zealand, to show that the living person, Geoffrey Martin, is a separate entity to the entity that they are coming here to represent, which is the birth certificate, which is a trading entity – is that not right? We are operating outside New Zealand, this is not New Zealand rules, this is a foreign territory. These people here are representing – they’ve split the titles, we have now – or what we are now trying to do is repatriate ....

[7] At that point, I interrupted Mr Henry and told him that I would not hear from him further and that he should resume his seat. When he refused to do so I directed him to leave the courtroom and I adjourned the hearing briefly.

[8] When the hearing resumed, Mr Henry was absent. I addressed Mr Smith directly and heard from him about the further grounds of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

[9] After hearing from Mr Smith, I refused the application and said I would give my reasons in writing. These are my reasons.

Facts found by the Court on enquiry

[10] As required by s 14(2) of the Act, I enquired into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify Mr Smith’s detention. Certified copies of birth certificates which were attached to the application identified the person on whose behalf the application had been filed as Geoffrey Martin Smith, a male born at Ngaruawahia on 18 August 1953.
[11] Court records obtained by the Registry on enquiry established that, in the Manukau District Court on 19 May 2016, Mr Smith pleaded guilty to one representative charge of importing a Class B controlled drug, Gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) into New Zealand (CRN15092500393), and one charge of attempting to possess a Class B controlled drug (GBL) for supply (CRN15092500312). Having been convicted on these charges, Mr Smith is liable to a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment¹ and 7 years’ imprisonment² respectively.

[12] Mr Smith subsequently applied for leave to vacate his pleas. That application was called before Judge S Moala on 8 March 2017 but, before dealing with it, Judge Moala ruled against a challenge by Mr Smith to the jurisdiction of the District Court to deal with him on the charges to which he had pleaded guilty.³ On 6 July 2017, the Court of Appeal declined an application by Mr Smith for leave to appeal against the District Court Judge’s decision as to jurisdiction.⁴ In that judgment, the Court of Appeal referred to similar challenges to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts having “been uniformly dismissed by the courts.”⁵

[13] It appears that Mr Smith failed to appear for sentencing on the charges to which he had pleaded guilty and a warrant for his arrest was issued on 21 July 2017. The warrant was executed on 27 December 2017. On 28 December 2017, Mr Smith appeared in the District Court at Hamilton. He was refused bail by Judge RH Riddell and remanded in custody to appear for sentence in the Manukau District Court on 22 January 2018.⁶

[14] The sentencing did not occur on 22 January 2018 and Judge IM Malosi issued a warrant to detain Mr Smith in the Spring Hill Corrections Facility until 28 March 2018. On 28 March 2018, Judge Moala remanded Mr Smith to appear in the District Court at Manukau for sentencing on 1 June 2018 and issued a further warrant (“the March warrant”) to detain him at Spring Hill Corrections Facility until the sentencing date. He is currently held at Rimutaka Prison pursuant to that warrant.

¹ Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 6(1)(a) and 6(2)(b).

² Sections 6(1)(f) and 6(2)(b).

³ R v Smith [2017] NZDC 4801 at [2].

⁴ Smith v R [2017] NZCA 288.

⁵ At [5].

⁶ R v Smith [2017] NZDC 29487.

[15] The March warrant and the two warrants which preceded it show that the charges in respect of which they were issued have the CRN numbers shown on the charge notices on which Mr Smith’s guilty pleas are recorded.

Mr Smith’s application for a writ of habeas corpus

[16] Mr Smith said he verified the contents of the unsworn document supporting his application for a writ of habeas corpus. I accepted that document as setting out the grounds upon which the application is made. In its operative part, it reads:

I, Geoffrey-Martin the immoral living soul created in the image of God with the trinity of body spirit and soul with the Wairau and breath of life, in my proper sui juris capacity hereinafter referred to as PETITIONER do hereby swear by Almighty God that I am of majority age and competent to testify, and that the truths and facts contained herein are accurate, complete and not misleading (including by omission) in any respect; so help me God.

1. The Petitioner says that the printout of my born record shows that the Petitioner was given the names Geoffrey-Martin (See Annexure “A”); and

2. That by registration of my born details an organisation was created; and

3. That a Birth Certificate 1953107218 was issued for that organisation (See Annexure “B”); and

4. The Birth Certificate being indicia of a Corporation/transmitting- utility or other creature of commerce trading in the public while remaining undischarged has through its Guardians, Officers, Administrators Agents or assigns by mischievous, deceitful, obscure and forceful methods induced the Petition to become security for the commercial activities carried on in its name; and

5. The Petition has now authenticated the printout and the attached Certificate (A) shows the names given as Geoffrey-Martin; and

6. That the attached Authenticated Birth Certificate shows the corporation trading as Geoffrey Martin SMITH: and

7. Does thou Statute of Westminster the first 1275 not say, For the maintaining of Peace and Justice. First the King willeth and commandeth, that the peace of Holy Church and of the land, be well kept and maintained in all points, and that common right be done to all, as well poor as rich, without respect of persons; and

8. That the continued detention of Petitioner as surety for the PERSON, SMITH Geoffrey Martin without due process is a breach of the Rule of Law, S.98(2) Crimes Act 1961 and his substantive rights.

[17] Section 98 of the Crimes Act 1961 proscribes dealing in slaves.

[18] Mr Smith said, among other things, that the charges he faced had been dismissed by Judge McElrea

back in August and also Lord Stewart dismissed and discharged them as well. And you’re saying that there is a legal warrant, it’s not legal because the CRI number which it relies on is not lawful – together with the name, together with the date of birth – that’s not me. I’m Geoffrey Martin, and the two documents prove that.

[19] I explained to Mr Smith that the court documents showed his name as “Geoffrey Martin Smith” and they identify him as having been born on 18 August 1953. Mr Smith said:

That’s correct, that’s the person – that’s the corporation ... And the Secretary of America authenticated that I’m a living being registered in America, so all the law that

‒ and the case law that’s been produced by counsel – no argument whatsoever with them. It applies to New Zealand and that’s not me. So your CRI number and your petition or warrant to detain by the Judge is false and incorrect on a number of things:

(a) I’m not a New Zealander; (b) the CRI numbers and the name which he relies on and the date of birth don’t pertain to me, together with Lord Stewart discharged and dismissed those, together with Judge McElrea dismissed. So we’ve got a point of double-jeopardy here as well.

[20] After I had explained to Mr Smith that the criminal record numbers on the warrant under which he was detained matched the numbers of the charges to which he was recorded as having pleaded guilty, he said:

That is incorrect. Those charges were never put to me in May the 16^th. Judge McElrea dismissed the CRI number ending 1104 on the 2^nd of August in the Papakura Court and said I was free to go. Then Judge Moala got involved and issued a warrant because I supposedly failed to appear when I wasn’t ordered to appear, I was free to go. And then the new CRI numbers were created and on the 17^th of May 2017 or whatever that date was, there was no charges put to me. I did never plead guilty at all, and I have had no disclosure or anything on that CRI number; and, I’m sorry, I believe it is deliberate deceit. And then after that, in April or May – and I’m going on memory, Lord Stewart dismissed and discharged both those CRI numbers as well, and that has been served on the Court and the Crown about 20 times now and at no stage had they rebutted. So by law unrebutted claims stands as the truth, they’ve been served three times, there has been no rebuttal. That is a false warrant of arrest – being detained.

[21] Mr Smith told me that the person he referred to as “Lord Stewart” is:

a common law judge and a JP from Tauranga, who was appointed by the common law Court to have a hearing for which the Crown and Judge Moala were invited to attend and they chose not to. So Lord Stewart gave the order and discharged and dismissed [the charges].

[22] Mr Smith confirmed that he had appeared before Judge Riddell on 28 December 2017 and, although he denied he had applied for bail, that he had been remanded in custody until 22 January 2018 when he was to appear in the District Court at Manukau. I have seen a copy of Judge Riddell’s notes of the hearing on 28 December 2017 in which she records that Mr Smith applied for bail and that it was declined.⁷

[23] Mr Smith confirmed also that he had appeared in the District Court at Manukau on 22 January 2018 and was remanded in custody by Judge Malosi to appear on 28 March 2018, and that he appeared before Judge Moala on 28 March 2018 and was remanded in custody to appear on 1 June 2018 for sentence.

[24] There is no merit in Mr Smith’s application for a writ of habeas corpus and I refused it, for these reasons:

(a) After an enquiry into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify Mr Smith’s detention, I am satisfied that the warrant dated 28 March 2018 under which Mr Smith is detained is lawful.

(b) The application is, in effect, an application for bail and the Court is precluded from considering it by s 14(2)(b) of the Act which provides that the Court is not entitled to call into question a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) To the extent that Mr Smith’s grounds for the application involve a challenge to the jurisdiction of the New Zealand courts, a similar

⁷ R v Smith [2017] NZDC 29487 at [1] and [4].

argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal in Smith v R⁸ when it dealt with the appeal against Judge Moala’s ruling on jurisdiction in March 2017. I am satisfied that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by Mr Smith.⁹

(d) The grounds set out in the document supporting the application and in the submissions made by Mr Smith and, on his behalf, by Mr Henry are nonsensical gibberish, making the application an abuse of the process of the Court.

[25] After I informed Mr Smith that his application was refused, he said he wished to challenge the warrant under which he was detained and would seek further information. I told him that he had had a right of appeal against the decision to remand him in custody to 1 June 2018 and that he was entitled to apply to the District Court for information about the charges, but that he could not challenge the District Court’s orders by bringing another habeas corpus application.

[26] I direct the Registrar of any registry of this Court in which Mr Smith, or anyone purporting to act on his behalf, seeks to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus, at any time between the date of this judgment and the date on which Mr Smith is sentenced for his offending, that the application shall not be accepted for filing without the leave of a Judge of this Court.

[27] Mr Macklin and Mr Harvey worked diligently after the papers were served on the Crown on Friday and provided the Court with comprehensive and relevant authorities in opposition. I am grateful to them for their prompt assistance.

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

Toogood J

8. Smith v The Queen [2017] NZCA 288 at [5]. See also Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10 at [2]; Phillips v R [2013] NZCA 580 at [3]; and R v Mitchell CA68/04, 23 August 2004 at [14].

⁹ Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A)(b).