Hawkins v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-269 [2015] NZHC 1070

BETWEEN
SHANE EDWARD HAWKINS

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing: 11 May 2015

Appearances:

A Bailey for Applicant
C J Lange for Defendant

Judgment:

20 May 2015

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] Mr Hawkins’ application for habeas corpus was adjourned pending inquiries by the parties regarding details of his original custodial remand and the charges to which it related. That inquiry was necessary as a result of an ancillary argument raised by Mr Hawkins in the course of the oral hearing of his application, regarding his initial remand in custody. I accepted Mr Hawkins’ argument that such period of remand should be taken into account in calculation of release date, notwithstanding an intervening application under s 80F(4)(d) to cancel a sentence of home detention
and the substitution of a sentence of imprisonment.1

[2] I have now received a further submission from the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections providing details of Mr Hawkins original custodial remand and the charges to which it related. It is not necessary for me to set out those particulars. It is sufficient that I record that, following my decision, the Chief
Executive has calculated the pre-sentence detention period for Mr Hawkins as six

1 Hawkins v Chief Executive Department of Corrections [2015] NZHC 1001.

HAWKINS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 1070 [20 May
2015]

days, and his release date to be 20 May 2015. I am advised that Mr Hawkins agrees with this calculation.

[3] I also note for completeness that I have sighted a warrant to detain Mr Hawkins in respect of a charge of breaching his home detention conditions, for which he appeared in the Christchurch District Court on 30 April 2015. The warrant records that Mr Hawkins was remanded in custody, with a direction that he be brought before the Court on 19 May 2015. I have been advised that in relation to that charge, Mr Hawkins has been granted bail to appear again on 15 July.

[4] It follows from the receipt of this information that Mr Hawkins has not been the subject of unlawful detention, and his application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

[5] The Chief Executive does not apply for costs.

Solicitors:
Andrew Bailey, Christchurch
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shane Edward Hawkins v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections, the applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge his detention. The court had to determine if the applicant was being unlawfully detained. The application was initially adjourned to allow for further inquiry into the details of the applicant's original custodial remand and the charges associated with it. The court acknowledged that the initial period of remand should be considered in calculating the release date, despite an intervening application to change the sentence to imprisonment. Following the inquiry, the Chief Executive provided details of the original remand and the associated charges. Based on this information, the court calculated the pre-sentence detention period as six days, with the applicant's release date set for 20 May 2015. The applicant agreed with this calculation, and the court found that he had not been unlawfully detained. Consequently, the application for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the initial remand period should be taken into account in the calculation of the applicant's release date, and whether the applicant's detention was lawful. The court had to consider the details of the applicant's original remand and the charges to which it related. The court also had to determine if the applicant's detention was in accordance with the law, given the intervening application to change the sentence to imprisonment. The Chief Executive provided the necessary information to address these issues, and the court was satisfied that the applicant's detention was lawful. The court's reasoning was based on the calculation of the pre-sentence detention period and the applicant's agreement with the release date. The court found that the applicant was not being unlawfully detained and dismissed the application for a writ of habeas corpus.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	11 May 2015
Appearances:	A Bailey for Applicant C J Lange for Defendant
Judgment:	20 May 2015