KING -v- ALAN PIPER, DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WA [2004] WASCA 218
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 218 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1952/2004 | 20 SEPTEMBER 2004 | |
| Coram: | MURRAY J TEMPLEMAN J MILLER J | 29/09/04 | |
| 11 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | RODNEY NATHAN KING ALAN PIPER, DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WA |
Catchwords: | Habeas corpus Application by prisoner Whether prisoner held unlawfully in custody following his discharge from sentence Parole term Prisoner released on parole Parole order cancelled Prisoner again committed to prison under warrant |
Legislation: | Criminal Procedure Rules 2000 (WA), r 68 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18 Sentence Administration Act (1995) (WA) s 42, s 71 Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 85, s 95 Sentencing Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2003 (WA), s 22, s 29, Sch 1 cl 5(2), cl 9 |
Case References: | Dien v Manager, Immigration Detention Centre, Port Hedland (1993) 115 FLR 416 McGillivray v Piper, CEO, Ministry of Justice [2000] WASCA 245 Anthony Hordern & Sons Ltd v Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia (1932) 47 CLR 1 Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 Court, In re (1871) 2 QSCR 171 Gibbs v State of NSW (1990) 21 NSWLR 416 Hayden v R [2003] WASCA 210 Ireland v R [2000] WASCA 312 Kelleher v Parole Board (NSW) (1984) 156 CLR 364 Leon Fink Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Film Commission (1979) 141 CLR 672 McLean v R [1999] WASCA 209 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Acting Governor of Her Majesty's Prison, Pentridge; ex parte Butterly (1974) VR 634 R v Canning Vale Superintendent & Anor; ex parte Landry, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; 23 December 1988 R v Governor of Blundeston Prison; ex parte Gaffney [1982] 1 WLR 696 R v Governor of Brixton Prison; ex parte Ahsan [1969] 2 QB 222 Refrigerated Express Lines (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation & Ors (1980) 29 ALR 333 Reid v Hughes (1982) 29 SASR 207 Roser v R (2001) 24 WAR 254 Smith v Corrective Service Commissioner of (NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134 Smith v Queensland Community Corrections Board (2002) 1 Qd R 448 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- TEMPLEMAN J
MILLER J
- Applicant
AND
ALAN PIPER, DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WA
Respondent
Catchwords:
Habeas corpus - Application by prisoner - Whether prisoner held unlawfully in custody following his discharge from sentence - Parole term - Prisoner released on parole - Parole order cancelled - Prisoner again committed to prison under warrant
Legislation:
Criminal Procedure Rules 2000 (WA), r 68
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 18
Sentence Administration…
Continue reading King v Piper
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- King v Piper [2004] WASCA 218
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 218
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of King v Piper involved an application for habeas corpus by the applicant, King, who sought to be released from what he claimed was unlawful detention following his discharge from a sentence. The respondent, Piper, was the officer responsible for King's detention. The dispute centred on whether King's continued detention under a parole order, which was subsequently cancelled, constituted unlawful custody. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The court was tasked with determining whether King's detention was lawful after his release from a custodial sentence and subsequent cancellation of his parole order. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether King's detention under a warrant issued after the cancellation of his parole order was justified and whether there were any procedural errors that rendered his detention unlawful. The central issue was whether the legal framework governing parole and subsequent detention was properly followed.
The court found that King's detention was lawful. It held that the cancellation of the parole order did not automatically release King from custody, and that the issuance of a warrant for his detention was justified under the relevant statutory provisions. The court determined that there were no procedural errors that would render King's detention unlawful. Consequently, the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.
The court was tasked with determining whether King's detention was lawful after his release from a custodial sentence and subsequent cancellation of his parole order. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether King's detention under a warrant issued after the cancellation of his parole order was justified and whether there were any procedural errors that rendered his detention unlawful. The central issue was whether the legal framework governing parole and subsequent detention was properly followed.
The court found that King's detention was lawful. It held that the cancellation of the parole order did not automatically release King from custody, and that the issuance of a warrant for his detention was justified under the relevant statutory provisions. The court determined that there were no procedural errors that would render King's detention unlawful. Consequently, the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.