Genge v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 53/2015
[2015] NZSC 88

BETWEEN	RICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Gunn and S J Humphrey for Respondent
Judgment:	22 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant is currently serving a life sentence for murder imposed in October 1995 and is detained pursuant to a warrant of commitment issued under s 143 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. He contends that as a result of the repeal of that Act by the Sentencing Act 2002, the warrant of commitment is of no effect and he seeks release accordingly.
His application for habeas corpus was dismissed by Mander J[1] and his subsequent appeal from that judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.[2] He now seeks leave to appeal from the latter decision.
[1]Genge v Superintendent of Christchurch Men’s Prison [2014] NZHC 705 [Genge (HC)].
[2]Genge v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2015] NZCA 157 [Genge (CA)].
In his application and other material provided by the applicant, he complained about the hearing he was accorded in the Court of Appeal. He also has indicated that he has some concerns as to parole. In a letter of 31 May however, he advised that he had obtained legal advice to the effect that in the context of the present application, this Court is the “wrong forum” for the ventilation of his parole concerns. He asked that the proceedings “be changed from habeas corpus to a judicial review, to be heard in a lower court”. However, the applicant subsequently wrote a further letter (of 10 June) indicating a desire to pursue his application.
As the applicant was advised, the present proceedings do not provide an appropriate context for consideration of parole issues.
The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal adequately explain why the applicant’s detention is still authorised by the 1995 warrant notwithstanding the repeal of the Criminal Justice Act.[3] If the applicant’s submissions in the Court of Appeal were curtailed as he claims, that is unsurprising given the obvious validity of his detention. The proposed appeal raises no question of law of public or general importance and there is no appearance of a miscarriage of justice.
[3]Genge (HC) at [14]–[16] and Genge (CA) at [8]–[23].

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for leave to appeal by Richard Lyall Genge, who is currently serving a life sentence for murder. Genge argued that his detention under a warrant of commitment issued under section 143 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 was no longer valid following the repeal of that Act by the Sentencing Act 2002, and sought his release on this basis. Genge's application for habeas corpus was dismissed by Mander J, and his subsequent appeal from that judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Genge now seeks leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Genge's detention remained valid in light of the repeal of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. The Court needed to determine whether the Court of Appeal's dismissal of Genge's appeal raised a question of law of public or general importance or appeared to involve a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the Court had to consider Genge's concerns regarding the fairness of the hearing he received in the Court of Appeal and his parole-related grievances.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeal's dismissal of Genge's appeal did not raise a question of law of public or general importance, nor did it appear to involve a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal's judgments had adequately explained why Genge's detention was still authorised by the 1995 warrant despite the repeal of the Criminal Justice Act. The Supreme Court also noted that if Genge's submissions in the Court of Appeal were curtailed as he claimed, this was unsurprising given the obvious validity of his detention. The Court concluded that the proposed appeal did not warrant leave to appeal. Additionally, the Supreme Court clarified that the present proceedings were not an appropriate context for considering parole issues.

The Supreme Court dismissed Genge's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's dismissal of Genge's appeal did not raise a question of law of public or general importance or appear to involve a miscarriage of justice. As a result, Genge's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and he remains detained under the 1995 warrant of commitment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established