Martin v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2017] NZHC 3294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2017-488-000143 [2017] NZHC 3294

IN THE MATTER	of an application for a writ of habeas corpus
BETWEEN	ROBIN DION LESLIE MARTIN Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	22 December 2017
Appearances:	The applicant in person J Simpson for Respondent
Judgment:	22 December 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland

Copy to:

R D L Martin

MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 3294 [22

December 2017]

[1]      On 20 December 2017, the applicant, Mr Martin, filed a document headed “Memorandum in Respect for a Writ of Habeas Corpus” with the Registry with the Court in Whangarei. The document is dated 9 December 2017.

[2]      It was brought to my attention – in my capacity as duty Judge – on the same day. Notwithstanding the wording of the document and the fact that it did not purport to be an originating application, I nevertheless treated it as a being an application for a writ of habeas corpus and directed that it should be served on the respondent – the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and on the Crown Law office.  I directed that the matter would be heard today at 10am.

[3]      Mr Martin has attended by AVL.  The Crown is represented by Mr Simpson through the Crown’s solicitor’s office in Auckland.

[4]      Mr Martin’s written papers are not easy to follow. Nor were his oral arguments. As I understand it, he is essentially asserting a sovereignty-based argument.  He says that he has withdrawn his consent to being governed, and that the laws of New Zealand no longer apply to him.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 the Warrant of Commitment under which he is currently held in custody at the Northland Region Corrections Facility, is no longer authority for his lawful detention.

[5]      Clearly this argument is without merit. The Courts have consistently held that challenges to the sovereignty of Parliament, and the validity of acts of Parliament (whether in the context of Māori sovereignty arguments or any other challenge to the sovereignty of the New Zealand Parliament), cannot succeed.1

[6]      Under s 14(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, it is for the respondent to establish that the detention of the applicant is lawful.

[7]      Mr Simpson has produced a copy of the Warrant of Commitment for Mr

Martin.  He was sentenced to two years and eight months’ imprisonment by Judge

Singh on 2 May 2017 for five charges of burglary. A copy of the Warrant, issued under

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

s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and signed by Judge Singh, has been made available to me.

[8]      There is clearly lawful authority for Mr Martin’s continued detention.   His application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

Wylie J