Harris v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2020] NZHC 2744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-555

[2020] NZHC 2744

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2011

BETWEEN

DANIEL HARRIS

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF RIMUTAKA PRISON

Second Respondent

Teleconference:

16 October 2020

Appearances:

Mr Harris in person

G Taylor for the Respondent

Judgment:

16 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1]                 By application dated 13 October 2020 Mr Harris applied for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

[2]                 The application was referred to me in my capacity as Duty Judge, and in accordance with the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 I scheduled a hearing by telephone today at 2.15 pm. The respondent, who is more correctly identified as the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, filed a notice of opposition and submissions in opposition dated 14 and 15 October 2020 respectively. They provided to the Court a copy of two warrants of detention that had been issued by District Court Judges. The first was issued on 1 September 2020 by Judge C T Thompson remanding Mr Harris

HARRIS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2744

[16 October 2020]

in custody until 4 November 2020 on a charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the second dated 11 September 2020 remanding Mr Harris in custody until 30 October 2020 on a range of other charges. I am satisfied that both warrants demonstrate that Mr Harris is lawfully in custody as a consequence of bail decisions.

[3]Section 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:

…

(2)A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters of  fact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that enquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsection does not entitle a Judge to call into question—

(b)      a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

…

[4]In Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison the Court of Appeal said:1

[70] … In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation … it would then be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances. …

[5]                 Mr Harris explained that he believed there was insufficient evidence to justify the charges against him, and that he should not be detained for that reason. I explained to him that the High Court on habeas corpus did not address such issues, and that the District Court could take into account the strength of the case against him when making bail decisions. Furthermore it was open for Mr Harris to appeal any adverse bail decision to the High Court. But it was not appropriate for the Court to address his complaints by way of habeas corpus application.

[6]                 He nevertheless asked that a judgment of the Court be issued. For these reasons I dismiss his application for habeas corpus.

Cooke J

1      Bennett v Superintendent Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA), see also Warahi v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZCA 585 at 9–10.