Coleman v Chief Executive Department of Corrections

[2020] NZHC 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000181

[2020] NZHC 947

BETWEEN

DYLAN EDWARD COLEMAN

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:	8 May 2020
Appearances:	M Starling and N R Wham for the Applicant C J Boshier for the Respondent
Judgment:	8 May 2020

ORAL JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1]    Mr Coleman has applied for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus on the basis he is currently unlawfully detained. He is currently residing in a house administered by the Department of Corrections. It is on land associated with the Christchurch Prison. He argues that, with the way he has to stay at that address, he is unlawfully detained. He is particularly concerned at the way he is constrained from leaving that address without obtaining prior permission and the fact that he is not allowed to leave that address without being accompanied by Corrections’ staff who are involved in working alongside the residents at that address.

[2]    I have received detailed written submissions from the Crown. I have heard submissions this morning from Mr Coleman’s counsel. Some of those submissions relate to matters of law.

COLEMAN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 947 [8 May 2020]

[3]    Mr Coleman is in Court this morning, so I want to tell him now that the application for the issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus is declined.

[4]    In doing that, I do make the comment that he is living at that address currently pursuant to a sentence of intensive supervision which he is subject to and also pursuant to conditions associated with an interim supervision order that has been made previously.

[5]    It is clear from all that I have seen that both the sentence of intensive supervision and the interim supervision order were made for the purpose of trying to help Mr Coleman make progress in the way he looks after himself and deals with other people so as to enable him ultimately to be able to live in the community in a normal way. The information before the Court indicates clearly that there are huge challenges for Mr Coleman and those working with him in trying to achieve what the courts wanted him to achieve with regard to that.

[6]    The other reason for the interim supervision order and the intensive supervision was to protect the public and Mr Coleman from being involved in the sort of conduct which got him into serious trouble before and had involved serious criminal offending. That also is something that is being worked on at the same time by the staff who are having to work with Mr Coleman on a daily basis where he is living currently. There are challenges also in that regard.

[7]    I am declining the writ of Habeas Corpus for legal reasons which I will go into later. I just want to say to Mr Coleman that he is where he is because there are a number of people working with the Department of Corrections, and it was the purpose of the Judges who made the orders that have led to him being there, that Mr Coleman progresses in the way he lives with others, looks after himself and that he makes sure he does not behave when out in the community in a way that put himself and others in the community at the risk of further offending.

[8]    I am declining the writ of Habeas Corpus. I will give reasons for that in a judgment later. But, I also wanted Mr Coleman to hear me say what I understand the purpose of the orders that he is currently subject to was. That is what I want to say at this stage.

Solicitors:

M Starling, Barrister, Christchurch Raymond Donnelly & Co., Christchurch.