Eaden v District Court at Christchurch

[2023] NZHC 2451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2023-409-000166

[2023] NZHC 2451

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application by Emma Lesley Eaden

BETWEEN

EMMA LESLEY EADEN

Applicant

AND

DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	1 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Background

[1]                 Late On the afternoon of Thursday, 31 August 2023 the Registry received a document which was interpreted as an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The matter was referred to me as Duty Judge.

[2]                 The application was not in the form of an originating application under Part 19 of the High Court Rules 2016 (“HCR”). It consisted of a photocopy of a draft writ of habeas corpus taken from the Schedule to the Habeas Corpus Act 2021 (the Act). On that document had been written a number of marginal notes.

EADEN v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2023] NZHC 2451 [1 September 2023]

[3]                 Also received at the same time was what was described as a “notice of appeal”. Again, a photocopied draft form had been used with handwritten annotations.

[4]                 Although that document said that attached to it  as Exhibit A was a copy  of   a decision made on 23 August 2023 by an unnamed District Court Judge to revoke/refuse bail, no such decision was attached.

[5]                 Attached as Exhibit B to the document was a photocopy of ss 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, with various handwritten marginal notes and felt pen highlighting.

[6]                 From the information in that document, it seems that the applicant wishes to appeal a decision of the District Court refusing to grant her bail.

[7]                 The relief sought by the applicant in that document was her immediate discharge from custody and a remand at large to appear at court on 26 September 2023 for a case review hearing.

[8]                 A further document received was a printed form of notice of application for leave to appeal which had been filled in, in handwriting. This document also related to the decision to refuse/revoke bail.

[9]                 As the applicant had not provided a copy of the bail decision referred to, nor indicated the name of the Judge involved, I requested the Registry to check with the District Court. That revealed that on 24 August 2023 Judge M J Duggan in the District Court at Christchurch had declined an application by the applicant for bail and remanded her in custody with the case to be called again on 14 September 20234 at

11.45 am.1

1      Police v Eaden [2023] NZDC 18063.

Habeas Corpus applications

[10]             The common law  writ  of  habeas  corpus  is  of  ancient  origin  but,  in  New Zealand, the procedures relating to such applications are now governed by the Act.

[11]             The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the liberty of a person who has been unlawfully or unjustifiably detained. It is most commonly applied for in the context of detentions in prison.2 The appropriate respondent to be named in an application for habeas corpus is the superintendent of the prison where the applicant is being detained. In this case, this should have been the superintendent of Christchurch Women’s Prison.

Analysis

[12]             None of the procedural requirements in the Act have been complied with in this case. It is clear that what the applicant really wants to do is to challenge the District Court decision refusing to grant her bail.

[13]             Section 14(1A)(b) of the Act provides that the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the Court is satisfied that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

[14]             Where the Court is satisfied that s 14(1A) applies, the Court may reject the application on the papers.3 Decisions made on the papers should be given by way of formal judgment rather than a minute.4

Outcome

[15]             I am satisfied that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made the applicant. The

2      Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility [2012] NZSC 121.

3      Grant v Minister of Justice [2021] NZHC 1270.

4      Ericson v Department of Corrections [2014] NZCA 118, [2014] NZAR 540 at [9].

documents filed by the applicant are to be treated as if they were an appeal against the bail decision of Judge Duggan on 24 August 2023.

[16]The application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is therefore dismissed.

Churchman J