Hambly v Auckland South Correctional Facility - [2024] NZHC 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-911

[2024] NZHC 909

UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS JOHN EDWIN HAMBLY

Applicant

AND

AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

23 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF O’GORMAN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 April 2024 at 4 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

…………………………………

HAMBLY v AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONAL FACILITY [2024] NZHC 909 [23 April 2024]

[1] On 22 April 2024, Mr Hambly filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr Hambly says he has previously made a handwritten habeas corpus application that was declined (he says this was because it was not typed).

[2] Mr Hambly is presently serving a six-and-a-half-year term of imprisonment at the Auckland South Corrections Facility in Wiri. Mr Hambly’s trial took place before a jury between 29 May and 12 June 2023. He was found guilty by the jury on four charges: kidnapping, injuring with intent to injure, causing grievous bodily harm, and threatening grievous bodily harm. He was later sentenced by Downs J on 7 September 2023.1

[3] As recorded in the sentencing notes,2 Mr Hambly dismissed his lawyers on the morning of trial by placing them in a position in which they had no choice but to withdraw. He represented himself at trial, albeit with the benefit of standby counsel. Prior to the commencement of trial, Mr Hambly had a series of other experienced criminal lawyers acting for him who also withdrew.

[4] At the sentencing hearing, Mr Hambly submitted that the prosecution had abused the processes of the Court. He alleged illegality during the history of the four charges, and on that basis submitted that it was unlawful to imprison him. He also complained about disclosure, and that he suffered hardship because of delay.

Legal principles

[5] An application for an order under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 allows a person to challenge the lawfulness of their detention.3 Under s 7, an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made by originating application, but nothing in s 7(1) excludes the inherit jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and to make an order on an oral application at any time in circumstances of unusual urgency.4

1      R v Hambly [2023] NZHC 2506.
2      At [31]–[32].
3      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 6.
4      Section 7(2).

[6] Under s 9, an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be given precedence over all other matters before the High Court unless a judge of that court considers the circumstances require otherwise. Section 9(3) requires the Registrar to allocate a date for the hearing of an application no later than three working days after it is filed. Notwithstanding this provision, jurisdiction exists pursuant to s 14(1A) of the Habeas Corpus Act for the Court to dismiss a habeas corpus application…

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 Hambly v Auckland South Correctional Facility 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: [2024] NZHC 909
Decision Date: 23 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hambly v Auckland South Correctional Facility, Nicholas John Edwin Hambly applied for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that he is unlawfully detained. Hambly, who is serving a six-and-a-half-year sentence at Auckland South Corrections Facility, claims that he was wrongfully convicted on charges of kidnapping, injuring with intent to injure, causing grievous bodily harm, and threatening grievous bodily harm. His application contends that the prosecution abused the court process, and he suffered due to inadequate disclosure and delays. The primary issue was whether Hambly’s detention was lawful, and whether his allegations fell within the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction.

The court examined the statutory basis for Hambly’s detention and confirmed that the warrants of commitment were in order. It emphasised that the High Court’s habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited to challenges that are properly susceptible to fair and sensible summary determination. The court noted that habeas corpus is not appropriate for reopening underlying processes such as conviction and sentencing decisions. Hambly’s claims, which primarily challenge the legality of his conviction and sentencing, fall outside the scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction. Instead, these issues should be pursued through the appropriate appellate processes. The court found that the habeas corpus application was not the appropriate procedure for considering Hambly’s allegations, and thus his application was dismissed without a hearing.

In conclusion, the court determined that Nicholas Hambly is lawfully detained and declined his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The court found that the issues raised by Hambly are more appropriately addressed through the appellate process rather than through habeas corpus. The application was rejected on the basis that it did not fall within the proper scope of habeas corpus jurisdiction.

Orders