Courts consistently rejected argument that New Zealand law did not apply
In a proceeding in which a man in prison sought a writ of habeas corpus, the New Zealand Supreme Court extended the time for him to apply for leave to appeal but ultimately refused to grant such leave.
In Warren aka Te Rangatira v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2026] NZSC 74, the applicant received convictions in 2017 for two charges of attempted murder, a charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and a charge of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.
The applicant started serving a preventive detention sentence in prison. Before the New Zealand High Court, he unsuccessfully applied for a writ of habeas corpus.
Before the New Zealand Court of Appeal, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the High Court decision. The appeal court declined the applicant’s extension request. The appeal court determined that:
In those prior cases, the court consistently rejected the applicant’s argument that New Zealand law was inapplicable to him and held that the prison lawfully detained him under a valid warrant issued after his conviction and sentence.
Before the New Zealand Supreme Court, the applicant applied for leave to appeal from the appeal court ruling and requested an extension of time to do so. In his proposed appeal, the applicant argued that:
The Supreme Court of New Zealand granted an extension of time for the applicant to file a notice of application for leave to appeal. While the leave application was untimely, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the applicant had an explanation for the brief delay.
However, the Supreme Court ultimately declined the application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court saw insufficient prospects of success in the proposed appeal.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court of New Zealand’s and the Court of Appeal of New Zealand’s findings concerning the habeas corpus application. The Supreme Court did not consider habeas corpus the appropriate avenue for redress in this case.
