Greer v Rimutaka Prison Manager - [2014] NZHC 1957

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2014-485-10700 [2014] NZHC 1957

IN THE MATTER of an application for writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

ALAN GREER Applicant

AND

RIMUTAKA PRISON MANAGER Respondent

On thepapers: 18 August 2014

Judgment:

19 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

Introduction

[1] On Monday 18 August 2014, this Court received an application for a writ of habeas corpus from Mr Greer. He is currently in custody in Rimutaka Prison awaiting sentence, having been found guilty following a trial in the High Court on two counts of supplying methamphetamine; one count of supplying cannabis; one count of rape; three counts of threatening to kill; two counts of aggravated burglary; and one count of possession of an offensive weapon.

Applicant’s history of habeas corpus applications

[2] To say the least, Mr Greer has some experience in filing habeas corpus applications in this Court. It is not necessary to set out this history in full for the purposes of the current application, suffice to say that this latest application is of a
similar tenor to those that have gone before it.

GREER v RIMUTAKA PRISON MANAGER [2014] NZHC 1957 [19 August 2014]

[3] There is one decision relevant to the application before me, that being a minute of MacKenzie J on 16 May 2014 (following Mr Greer’s trial).1 MacKenzie J considered that Mr Greer’s application in that instance to raise issues that would more appropriately be dealt with on an appeal against conviction. The application, or so far as it purported to be an application, under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 was dismissed.

[4] MacKenzie J also addressed Mr Greer’s concern over his access a computer while in custody. Mr Greer alleged that his preparation for trial (being self- represented) and sentencing was in jeopardy because prison staff were restricting his access to a computer. In response, MacKenzie J said:2

That is an issue which I addressed extensively, both pre-trial and during the trial. I have reminded the Department of Corrections on several occasions of its obligations under reg 193 of the Corrections Regulations 2005. The obligations under that regulation continue at this stage. The matters raised by Mr Greer do not persuade me that it is necessary for me to do more than again remind the prison management of the obligations under that regulation.

This application

[5] Mr Greer says that he is being held “captive” in Rimutaka Prison since his

“perverted trial” on the charges set out above at [1].

[6] He then says, presumably with reference to MacKenzie J’s minute, that the tentative access to a computer has now been “denied at a whim” by prison officers. This complaint relates to Mr Greer’s ability to prepare for an application by media outlets on 7 and 8 July 2014 to be present at Mr Greer’s sentencing. Mr Greer asked for an extension of time to reply to the applications, which was granted by MacKenzie J on 16 July 2014. Submissions on that application were due…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Greer v Rimutaka Prison Manager and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NZHC 1957
Decision Date: 19 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application for a writ of habeas corpus by Alan Greer, who was currently in custody at Rimutaka Prison awaiting sentencing. Greer had been found guilty of multiple serious criminal charges including supplying methamphetamine and cannabis, rape, threatening to kill, aggravated burglary, and possession of an offensive weapon. The application was filed with the Wellington Registry and the matter was determined on the papers on 19 August 2014. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Greer's detention was lawful and if the court had jurisdiction to address his grievances.

Williams J examined Greer's application and noted that the writ of habeas corpus was intended to question the lawfulness of detention. However, the court could not question the validity of Greer's convictions, which were determined by a competent court. Williams J emphasised that the application was not the appropriate forum for addressing grievances related to prison conditions or other matters not directly pertaining to the legality of Greer's detention. The court found that Greer's claims of being held in "unlawful captivity" were unfounded given his status as a convicted prisoner awaiting sentencing.

Williams J declined to grant Greer a writ of habeas corpus and concluded that the application was not the appropriate procedure for considering his allegations. The court advised that if Greer believed his complaints had merit, he should pursue them through the available internal prisoner complaints procedures. The court's decision reaffirmed the limitations of the habeas corpus remedy and underscored the importance of using appropriate legal channels for addressing specific grievances.

Orders