Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 141/2021
[2022] NZSC 81

BETWEEN	DAVID SIMON BARTON Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M B Smith for Respondent
Judgment:	1 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In December 2020, whilst a serving prisoner, Mr Barton filed an application for habeas corpus. The application was advanced on the basis of failures by the Parole Board in refusing to grant him parole. Jagose J refused the application on the basis that Mr Barton’s dispute with the Parole Board’s determination did not make his underlying detention unlawful.[1] Jagose J was also satisfied, having examined the District Court Judge’s warrant, that Mr Barton remained detained under a valid warrant signed by the Judge. On 27 July 2021, Mr Barton filed an application for an extension of time to appeal the High Court judgment under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Court of Appeal declined to grant an extension of time concluding that the proposed appeal was “clearly hopeless”.[2] Mr Barton then sought leave to appeal to this Court.
[1]Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 3476.
[2]Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2021] NZCA 529 (Brown, Collins and Cull JJ) at [16].
The Court has since been advised that Mr Barton died shortly after his release. Some time is sought to allow the executor to consider the position. We have decided that we should, nonetheless, proceed to determine the application for leave. It is quite plain that the proposed appeal does not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.[3] The Court of Appeal applied settled principles in declining to grant an extension of time and nothing raised by Mr Barton’s application challenges those principles.[4] Nor is there any error apparent in the Court of Appeal’s assessment. The proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of leave. In addition, with the passage of time, the points Mr Barton wished to raise in the underlying appeal are now moot.
[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2).
[4]Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith, Whangarei for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections, involved David Simon Barton, a prisoner who filed an application for habeas corpus in December 2020, while serving time. Barton argued that the Parole Board's refusal to grant him parole made his detention unlawful. The application was dismissed by Jagose J, who held that Barton's dispute did not render his detention unlawful and that he was detained under a valid warrant. Following this, Barton applied for an extension of time to appeal the High Court judgment under rule 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, but the Court of Appeal declined his request, finding the appeal to be "clearly hopeless." Barton then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The legal issues in this case focused on whether the Supreme Court should grant Barton leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court had to determine if the appeal met the criteria for leave to appeal, considering the principles established in Almond v Read, and whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success. Additionally, the Court needed to consider the mootness of the points Barton intended to raise in the appeal.

The Supreme Court dismissed Barton's application for leave to appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court found that the appeal did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal, as the principles applied by the Court of Appeal were settled and correctly applied. Furthermore, the Court noted that the points Barton intended to raise in the appeal were now moot, as Barton had died shortly after his release from prison. The Court concluded that the appeal had insufficient prospects of success and did not warrant a grant of leave.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established