IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE	
CIV-2020-485-384
[2020] NZHC 2015	

UNDER THE	Habeas Corpus Act 2001	
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum	
BETWEEN	JOHN JOSEPH MANUEL
Applicant	
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Respondent	

Hearing:	On the papers	
Counsel:	Applicant in Person L Dittrich for Crown	
Judgment:	10 August 2020	

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1]	A document “under the seal of the Governor of the Arikinui o Tuhoe Government” and “Under the Seal of the Divine Constitution of ~:I’HO’WA- WHENUA” and signed by Te-Awhi’O’Rangi as “Governor-High-Chief-Treasury” was filed on 3 August 2020.

[2]	The document contains a warning:

Take notice that if you wilfully fail to comply with this writ of habeas corpus the High Court will be moved as soon as counsel can be heard for an order committing you to prison for your contempt.

MANUEL v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2015
[10 August 2020]

[3]	Beyond the command to immediately discharge and release John Manuel from custody the document does not say that Mr Manuel is detained or why his detention is unlawful.

[4]	Nevertheless I convened a hearing.

Mr Manuel’s current status

[5]	Mr Manuel was remanded in custody on charges of aggravated robbery, wounding with intent to injure or reckless disregard and threatening to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

[6]	On 12 July 2019 Judge Large granted Mr Manuel’s application for EM bail in respect of those three charges.1 Some 14 conditions were imposed including standard EM bail conditions. Mr Manuel was to be released from prison to take up his EM bail until his next callover on 29 August 2019.

[7]	Since Judge Large’s decision on 12 July 2019 bail conditions have been varied on three occasions the most recent being on 19 May 2020 when Judge Krebs remanded Mr Manuel on his existing bail conditions to a 3 August callover regarding his trial.2

[8]	At the callover on 3 August 2020 Mr Manuel was convicted and Judge Smith noted the trial record sheet “RT 15.10.20 at 10 am for callover BTC”.

Prior to the hearing

[9]	I had cause to issue a minute on 6 August 2020 following email communications between Te-Awhi’O’Rangi and the registry officer about arrangements for the hearing. The registry officer advised that Mr Manuel was to appear and that Te-Awhi’O’Rangi could not represent him at the hearing. The response was an email from Te-Awhi’O’Rangi to the effect she would “not be moving forward with the call and the allotted hearing for tomorrow” unless the corrections notified in her earlier email had been made. The earlier email stated that the case

1	R v Manuel [2019] NZDC 13512.
2	R v Manuel DC Palmerston North CRI-2018-054-003618, 24 July 2020.

officer had not taken care when writing a notice of date of hearing; that she used symbols that are incorrect and was asked to correct all symbols as this would be seen as fraudulent processing of information.

[10]	I directed the registry officer to confine her communications with the parties to those necessary for the purpose of facilitating the hearing at 10 am on 7 August 2020. The Minute concluded: “If Mr Manuel, without reasonable excuse, does not appear, the application for habeas corpus will be deemed abandoned”.

[11]	As it happens, Mr Manuel did not appear by VMR. Counsel for the respondent was in the courtroom. The VMR connection between the courtroom and Mr Manuel’s residence was successful. But, Mr Manuel did not appear. Instead, I understand Te- Awhi’O’Rangi asked for the name of the statute under which his appearance was required.

[12]	Te-Awhi’O’Rangi apparently advised the Court registrar that the application was made by her not Mr Manuel. After some 15 minutes of wasted time I directed the Court registrar to advise the parties I would determine the application on the papers.

The “application” for habeas corpus

[13]	The first point is that Mr Manuel is detained in which case the onus passes to the respondent to establish the lawfulness of the detention.3

[14]	The question is whether the Judge’s annotation that bail is to continue until 15 October 2020 is sufficient evidence of the lawfulness of Mr Manuel’s detention.

[15]	In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison the Court of Appeal stated:4

[70] … In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as the respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation ... it would then be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances.

3	Nottingham v Adern and others [2020] NZCA 144.
4	Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison (No 2), [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA).

[16]	Mr Manuel is remanded on bail with conditions following decisions on 12 July 2019, 24 July 2020, and Judge Smith’s effective ruling that bail was to continue until 15 October 2020. I say “effective” because that decision has not been recorded in notes following the hearing of a bail application, or a minute, or a ruling. I nevertheless regard it as authoritative. The direction is written by the Judge himself and signed. It is also unequivocal. I do not regard the relative informality of the delivery of the direction as detracting from its authority.

[17]	To the extent that the lawfulness of Mr Manuel’s detention is based on a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament or the jurisdiction of the courts it does not succeed. Challenges to the authority of the courts on jurisdictional grounds based on Māori sovereignty have been consistently rejected by the Supreme Court.5

Result

[18]	The application is dismissed.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

5	See for example Warren v R [2016] NZSC 156.