Burchell v The Manager, Mount Eden Corrections Facility HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-004717

[2011] NZHC 890

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2011-404-004717

BETWEEN  LLEWELLYN BURCHELL Applicant

ANDTHE MANAGER, MOUNT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY Respondent

Hearing:         8 August 2011

Counsel:         Applicant appears in Person

N Whittington for the Respondent

Judgment:      8 August 2011

ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

Distribution:

L Burchell: Mt Eden Corrections Facility, Lauder Road, Mt Eden, Auckland

N Whittington: [email protected]

L BURCHELL V THE MANAGER, MOUNT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY HC AK CIV 2011-404-

004717 8 August 2011

[1]      Mr Burchell has filed an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus against the Manager of the Mount Eden Corrections Facility.   He has appeared before me in person this morning.   He has sought name suppression and suppression of any identifying details in relation to this matter.  He refers to the fact that suppression orders have been made in separate proceedings he has commenced against [Party X].

[2]      Mr Whittington on behalf of the Crown submits that there is no principled reason why name suppression should be granted in these proceedings.  He submitted that open justice requires that suppression should be declined.

[3]      I  have  considered  the  submissions  made  to  me  by  Mr  Burchell.    As  I understand it, he is aggrieved by earlier publications in relation to other matters in which he is involved. That is of no relevance for present purposes.

[4]      The present proceedings seek a writ of Habeas Corpus.   Mr Burchell is asserting that he is innocent of the crime in respect of which he has been imprisoned, and advises that he is challenging both his conviction and the sentence imposed on him.  I cannot see that there is any reason why name suppression should be granted in the present proceedings.   Mr Burchell has advanced no substantive reason in support of his application and it seems to me that the principles of open justice should apply.

[5]      Accordingly, Mr Burchell’s application for name suppression is declined.

[6]      For the purposes of clarification, I confirm that the name of that respondent in the other proceedings referred to in [1] above is suppressed pursuant to the order initially made by Cooper J in those proceedings, and subsequently confirmed by Peters J.   The name of the respondent in those proceedings, or any details which

might lead to the identification of that respondent, are suppressed under those orders.

Wylie J