Delamare v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 84/2022
[2022] NZSC 140

BETWEEN	BEAUXDINE PETER DELAMARE Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY‑GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J B Watson and T Li for Respondent
Judgment:	7 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.

BThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Delamare was sentenced in the District Court to three years and five months’ imprisonment on 9 August 2021.[1] In early April 2022, he applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. That application was dismissed by the High Court.[2] Mr Delamare appealed unsuccessfully from that decision to the Court of Appeal.[3] He has now made an application for leave to appeal to this Court.

The decision of the Court of Appeal

[1]R v Delamare [2021] NZDC 16098.

[2]Delamare v Attorney‑General [2022] NZHC 699 (Gendall J).

[3]Delamare v Attorney‑General [2022] NZCA 272 (Gilbert, Mander and Fitzgerald JJ).

In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that in the High Court the Attorney‑General had produced the relevant warrant under which Mr Delamare is currently detained. The Court agreed with the High Court that the warrant demonstrated a lawful basis for his detention. The Court also observed there was no direct challenge to the lawfulness of the warrant. The Court of Appeal accepted “the Judge’s conclusion that none of the matters raised by Mr Delamare means that the warrant is unlawful”.[4]
[4]At [9].
Finally, the Court noted that to the extent the application was a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament, that argument had been rejected by the courts including this Court.[5] As Mr Delamare was detained in custody under a lawful warrant to detain, the application for a writ of habeas corpus was correctly dismissed.

The proposed appeal

[5]Citing by way of example Warren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2017] NZSC 20 at [7].

Essentially, Mr Delamare wishes to argue that New Zealand laws have no authority over him and he is therefore entitled to habeas corpus. Among other matters, he emphasises the importance to tangata whenua of sustainability aspects of customary rights and usages. In addition, he relies on the fact that he appeared by audio-visual link at the hearings related to his application for habeas corpus.
The proposed appeal would largely have this Court reconsider arguments considered and rejected by the Court of Appeal. Nothing raised by the applicant in the present application calls into question the correctness of that Court’s decision. The criteria for leave to appeal are accordingly not met.[6]

Result

[6]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).

The application for leave to appeal was filed out of time but the delay is explained. There is no objection to our granting an extension of time. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application by Beauxdine Peter Delamare for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's dismissal of his habeas corpus application. Delamare had been sentenced to imprisonment by the District Court and had previously sought a writ of habeas corpus from the High Court and subsequently from the Court of Appeal, both of which were dismissed on the basis that his detention under a lawful warrant was justified. Delamare sought to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that New Zealand laws had no authority over him and that he was entitled to habeas corpus, with a focus on sustainability aspects of customary rights and usages, as well as the method of his appearance at the hearings.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted despite being filed out of time and whether the criteria for leave to appeal were met. The Court had to consider the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision that the warrant was lawful and that there was no basis to challenge the detention. The Court also needed to assess if Delamare's arguments raised any new matters that could question the Court of Appeal's decision or if they were simply a reiteration of previously rejected arguments.

The Court granted the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal as the delay was explained and no objection was raised. However, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed as the arguments proposed did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal. The Court found that Delamare's application was largely a reconsideration of arguments that had already been rejected by the Court of Appeal, and nothing in the present application called into question the correctness of that Court's decision. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no merit in Delamare's proposed appeal, and thus, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established