IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV 2011-485-1840 [2013] NZHC 131

BETWEEN	BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON Applicant

AND	THE ATTORNEY GENERAL First Respondent

AND	WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent

Hearing:	On Papers

Judgment:	5 February 2013

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG

[1]       On 7 January 2013 the applicant, Mr Easton, filed what he described as “a review of the High Court Manager’s (Registrar) decision not to accept for filing – in unusual  urgency –  an  oral  petition  for a writ  of habeas  corpus”.    I considered Mr Easton’s application on 15 January 2013.   I refused Mr Easton’s application to review   and   said   that   I   would   release   my   reasons   for   the   refusal   in early February 2013.  I now do so.

[2]       It seems that on Friday, 21 December 2012, Mr Easton attended the High Court  Registry  in  Wellington  and  said  he  wished  to  make  an  interlocutory application for a writ of habeas corpus.  He said his application was oral but he left what he described as a short written notice at the Registry which was then date
stamped.

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON V THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HC WN CIV 2011-485-1840 [5 February
2013]

[3]       On  Sunday,  23 December 2012  it  seems  that  Mr Easton  contacted  the

Registrar to ask when the oral application was going to be heard.   On Monday,

24 December 2012, the Registrar reviewed the written notice and found it was, as she  understood  it,  an  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  to  release  the Governor General.

[4]       The Registrar then advised Mr Easton that she was refusing to accept any such application for filing.  Mr Easton then asked that the paper that he had filed be returned to him and that accordingly occurred.   Mr Easton has now filed written material relating to this review.  Much of the material is incomprehensible.

[5]       It seems that Mr Easton’s application was for a writ of habeas corpus to, in

his words:

... remove Her Majesty’s onshore representative from the restraints of a bad faith application off Her very own letters patent convenes and final remedial cause to bring a fault of legal jurisdiction to a declaration of its own acts of dysfunction.

[6]       In  the  written  review  application  there  is  then  a  section  relating  to Mr Easton’s unemployment benefit and a criminal case before the Courts relating to Mr Easton together with other matters relating to Mr Easton’s life.  There is nothing in the 18 page document filed by Mr Easton which suggests that Mr Easton is being detained by the State.  Nor indeed does Mr Easton suggest that the Governor General is being detained by anyone in the sense meant by the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.

[7]       The Registrar, therefore, was correct to reject Mr Easton’s application for a
writ of habeas corpus there being no assertion that Mr Easton or indeed anyone else identified was being unlawfully detained.

Ronald Young J