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 on Friday

15 August 2014.   Because of his restricted access to computers and printers, Mr Greer  says  he  has  had  to  handwrite  his  documents  for  filing,  and  that  those documents have been intercepted, thereby extending his “unlawful captivity.”

[7]      It appears that the removal of Mr Greer’s access to computers was an internal

prison sanction imposed following a hearing by a Visiting Justice in response to a

1 R v Greer HC Masterton CRI-2012-035-99, 16 May 2014.

2 At [5].

prohibited item being found in Mr Greer’s cell.  Mr Greer says he did not defend this charge, instead using the opportunity of the hearing to draw the Visiting Justice’s attention to the matters Mr Greer asks me to consider in this application.

The law as it applies to this application

[8]      I note first that I have considered Mr Greer’s application the urgency required under s 9(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act.  I am satisfied this matter can be determined on the papers, and as such I do not seek a response from the respondent.  Nor does the matter need to be allocated a fixture for hearing under s 9(3).

[9]      An application under the Habeas Corpus Act must go to the lawfulness of persons detained.  The only part of Mr Greer’s application that I can entertain in the context of this application is his allegation that he is being held in “unlawful captivity”.

[10]     In habeas corpus applications, the onus is on the respondent to establish that the detention of the applicant is indeed lawful.3    The respondent is not required to prove lawful detention if the Court is satisfied that the application is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.4

[11]    Crucially, the Court cannot question any convictions entered against the applicant by a court of competent jurisdiction.5

[12]     Mr Greer has been convicted in the High Court following trial in accordance with the law of very serious criminal charges.  There is no substance to his claims that he is a “captive”.   Quite the contrary. He is a convicted prisoner awaiting sentence.

[13]     I decline to grant Mr Greer a writ of habeas corpus.

[14]     I  do  not  need  to  consider  the  other  matters  raised  by  Mr  Greer  in  his application because this is not, as I mentioned above, the appropriate forum to do so.

3 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).

4 Section 14(1A)(b).

5 Section 14(2)(a).

If Mr Greer feels his complaints have merit, there are internal prisoner complaints

procedures available to him.

Williams J