Dickey v Auckland Police Prosecutions

[2025] NZHC 883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000767

[2025] NZHC 883

BETWEEN

AARON DICKEY

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND POLICE PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:	9 April 2025
Appearances:	J McGilvary for the Applicant D Karl for the Respondent
Judgment:	11 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 April 2025 at 10:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5

of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Liberty Law, Manukau MC, Auckland

DICKEY v AUCKLAND POLICE PROSECUTIONS [2025] NZHC 883 [11 April 2025]

[1]                 Aaron Dickey is presently remanded in custody pending sentence. He applies under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 for a writ of Habeas Corpus.

Background

[2]                 On 9 January 2025 Mr Dickey was remanded in custody following a breach of bail. On 10 January 2025 the District Court at Manukau declined his application for readmission to bail.

[3]                 At that stage, Mr Dickey faced various charges including for assault on a person in a family relationship;1 and possession of an offensive weapon.2

[4]                 At a pre-trial hearing on 27 March 2025 the prosecution offered no evidence in relation to the family violence charge. On 4 April 2025, Mr Dickey entered guilty pleas to all remaining charges following resolution discussions; namely:

(a)one charge of driving while suspended;3 and

(b)two charges of speaking threateningly;4

(c)one charge of behaving threateningly;5 and

(d)one charge of possession of a knife in a public place.6

[5]Mr Dickey was remanded in custody pending sentence on 17 June 2025.

[6]                 Mr McGilvary for Mr Dickey points out that by 17 June 2025 Mr Dickey will have been in custody for more than five months. However, the maximum penalty on each of the offences for which he is to be sentenced is three months imprisonment. Thus the Habeas Corpus application.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 194A, maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

2      Crimes Act 1961, s 202A(4), maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment.

3      Land Transport Act 1998, s 32(1)(c), maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

4      Summary Offences Act 1981, s 21, maximum penalty three months’ imprisonment.

5      Section 21, maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

6      Section 13A, maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment.

[7]                 Ms Karl for the respondent has produced the warrant to detain Mr Dickey under r 3.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 and s 168(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The warrant is dated 4 April 2025 and signed by Judge P J Winter. It is clear from this that Mr Dickey is lawfully detained. On that basis alone the application for a writ of Habeas Corpus must fail.

[8]                 Nevertheless, there appears to be merit in Mr McGilvary’s submission that by the time Mr Dickey comes for sentence on 17 June 2025 he will have spent five months and eight days in custody. From the limited information available, that would appear to be considerably longer than any term of imprisonment that would be imposed for the five offences to which Mr Dickey has pleaded guilty.

[9]                 It is unclear whether Mr Dickey applied under s 13 of the Bail Act 2000 for bail pending sentence. He may wish to do so. Alternatively, as discussed with counsel, in these circumstances the District Court, whilst extremely busy, may be able to bring Mr Dickey’s  sentencing  date  forward,  either in Auckland or a  different Registry.  I understand counsel will make enquiries. The prosecution as well as Mr McGilvary should be in a position to deal with sentencing at short notice if the District Court can facilitate that.

Result

[10]The application for a writ of Habeas Corpus is declined.

Robinson J