Legal Research
Cases
Greer v Smith

Greer v Smith

Case [2015] NZHC 326 2 March 2015

Jurisdiction

Constitutional Validity

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Constitutional Law

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2015-412-15 [2015] NZHC 326

IN THE MATTER OF
an application under the Habeas Corpus

Act 2001

BETWEEN

ALAN GREER Applicant

AND

RAY SMITH First Respondent

JACK HARRISON Second Respondent

On thePapers: 25 February 2015

Judgment:

2 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

The ancient writ is sought

[1] On 26 February 2015, the applicant, Alan Greer, filed an 18 page “application for writ of habeas corpus”. The intituling records that Mr Greer is the “captive applicant”, and each page contains the header “extorted by torture”. The grounds upon which Mr Greer appears to seek his writ are recorded in the first paragraph as follows:

TAKE NOTICE, that on the 12th day of February 2015 or as soon thereafter as the applicant can be heard, the applicant will move the Court for an order in the nature of a writ of habeas corpus upon the grounds that such an order is fair and just and furthermore upon the grounds contained herewith.

[2] What then follows in the remainder of the document are a series of statements alleging improprieties of the judicial branch of Government, and the derogation of
rights. These include allegations around fair trial rights (including inadequate

GREER v SMITH & ANOR [2015] NZHC 326 [2 March 2015]

facilities to prepare a defence), access to justice, impartiality and independence of Courts, prosecutorial impropriety, complaints against Corrections/Prison staff (including perjury) amongst a plethora of other such claims.

[3] Mr Greer was convicted by jury trial on counts of supplying methamphetamine (x2), supplying cannabis, rape, threatening to kill (x3), aggravated burglary (x2) and possession of an offensive weapon. On 26 September 2014
MacKenzie J sentenced Mr Greer on these offences.1 On the charge of sexual

violation by rape, he was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years. Mr Greer appears to be in the process of appealing against both conviction and sentence. He currently is a sentenced prisoner at the Otago Correctional Facility.

[4] The filing of an application for a writ of habeas corpus would suggest, on its face, that Mr Greer is seeking to impeach the validity of his imprisonment following the entry of convictions and sentence. This does not, however, seem to be the case. While much of the material contained in the 18 page handwritten submissions is both inflammatory and repetitive, Mr Greer’s position is perhaps best encapsulated in his own ‘summary’:

… the applicant was held captive from August 2012 till March 2014, denied access to a computer and other facilities, contrary to common law, regulations, the processes of the jails FO.7 form, several attached herewith, and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 section 24…

[5] It is to the examination of the application I now turn.

The habeas corpus regime in New Zealand

The nature of the writ

[6] In New Zealand the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 governs all applications for habeas corpus. It is a writ that will issue…

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.

Continue reading Greer v Smith

Details

AGLC: Greer v Smith [2015] NZHC 326
Case: [2015] NZHC 326
Decision Date: 2 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Alan Greer sought a writ of habeas corpus from the High Court in Dunedin. Greer was a convicted prisoner at the time, having been found guilty of serious criminal offences and sentenced to an indefinite period of imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 10 years. The writ is an ancient remedy that seeks to ensure that no subject of the realm is unlawfully detained. In this case, Greer did not appear to be seeking to challenge the legality of his detention. Rather, his application appeared to be a collateral attack on the management of the Otago Correctional Facility, and the denial of certain facilities. These were issues more suited to internal complaints procedures or judicial review, and not habeas corpus.

The Court found that Greer's application fell foul of several provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, including s 14(1A)(b), which allows a Court to dismiss an application where the procedure is not appropriate for the issues raised. In addition, s 15(1) of the Act prevents a Court from considering an application that seeks to re-litigate the same, or substantially the same questions as were raised in a previous application. This latter ground was engaged in this case, as an earlier application by Greer for habeas corpus had already been refused by Goddard J. The Court dismissed Greer's application.

The Court declined to consider the other issues raised by Greer in his application, as they did not fall within the scope of the writ of habeas corpus. Greer was directed to raise any such issues through appropriate internal complaints procedures if he wished to do so.

Orders