Te Amo v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-001534

[2019] NZHC 1880

UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus

BETWEEN

TERRINA ANN TE AMO

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing: 2 August 2019

Appearances:

Applicant in person (via AVL) R W Belcher for the respondent

Judgment:

2 August 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Party/Solicitors:
The applicant
Meredith Connell, Auckland

TE AMO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1880 [2 August 2019]

[1] On 31 July 2019, Ms Terrina Te Amo made what I interpret to be an application for habeas corpus. She says she has been through due process in the District Court and she originally intended to appeal to the High Court. She also wishes to pursue a habeas corpus application. She says she has been unlawfully detained and held at a women’s prison against her wishes. She references He Whakaputanga of 1835 and purports to proclaim customary law. She does not agree she is the person who should have been arrested. Implicitly, she rejects the jurisdiction of the Court, though she applies to the Court.

[2] The courts have consistently rejected challenges to their jurisdiction such as that raised by Ms Te Amo.1 It is misconceived in terms of New Zealand law. So is the distinction between a legal and natural person Ms Te Amo appears to advance. I am bound to exercise the jurisdiction of the High Court and apply the law of New Zealand. The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides for restoring the liberty of those who are unlawfully detained. Under s 14, I must enquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention and, if the defendant fails to establish detention is lawful, I must grant a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the release of the detained person from detention.

[3] The Department of Corrections has provided me with relevant documentation. Ms Te Amo is serving a sentence of two months’ imprisonment imposed by Judge T R Ingram in the District Court at Tauranga on 23 July 2019 for a range of offences including assaulting and resisting police and wilful damage. She is currently detained at Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility at Manukau. I have seen a valid warrant of commitment dated 23 July 2019 which I am satisfied demonstrates that Ms Te Amo was lawfully imprisoned. Accordingly, I decline the application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ms Te Amo, if you wish to pursue an appeal of your conviction or sentence that will have to be done separately.

Palmer J

1 See, for example, Wallace v R [2011] NZSC 10.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Ms Terrina Ann Te Amo applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming unlawful detention. Te Amo argued that she had been unlawfully held at a women’s prison against her will and wished to challenge her detention on the basis of an alleged unlawfulness under customary law, referencing He Whakaputanga of 1835. She also contested her identity as the individual who should have been arrested. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections opposed the application, asserting that Te Amo was lawfully detained under a valid warrant of commitment dated 23 July 2019, issued by Judge T R Ingram in the District Court at Tauranga.

The primary legal issue before Palmer J was whether Te Amo's detention was lawful and if the High Court had the jurisdiction to hear and grant a writ of habeas corpus. The court had to consider whether the application for habeas corpus was valid under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and whether the applicant had been unlawfully detained. The court also needed to determine if the jurisdictional challenges raised by Te Amo were tenable under New Zealand law. Furthermore, the court examined the validity of the warrant of commitment and the authority under which Te Amo was detained.

Palmer J dismissed Te Amo's application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court held that challenges to its jurisdiction, including those based on customary law, were misconceived under New Zealand law. The judge noted that the distinction between a legal and natural person, as suggested by Te Amo, was not valid. The court was bound to apply New Zealand law and exercise its jurisdiction as provided by the Habeas Corpus Act 2010. The warrant of commitment dated 23 July 2019, which demonstrated that Te Amo was lawfully imprisoned, was found to be valid. Consequently, the court concluded that Te Amo’s detention was lawful, and the application for a writ of habeas corpus was declined. Palmer J noted that any appeal against the conviction or sentence would have to be pursued separately.

The court did not issue any further orders, as the primary application for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
IN THE MATTER	of an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus
BETWEEN	TERRINA ANN TE AMO Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	2 August 2019
Appearances:	Applicant in person (via AVL) R W Belcher for the respondent
Judgment:	2 August 2019