JESSIE CLARK AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
[2024] NZSC 129
•2 October 2024
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA
SC 81/2024
[2024] NZSC 129
BETWEEN JESSIE CLARK Applicant AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE First Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent
| Court: | Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ |
| Counsel: | Applicant in person |
| W S Taffs for Respondents | |
| Judgment: | 2 October 2024 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024
(Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
____________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Mr Clark seeks recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024 declining
leave to appeal directly from a decision of the High Court.[1] The High Court declined
an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus application was made
on the basis that, as he is subject to electronically monitored bail (EM bail), he is
unlawfully detained.
[1] Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106. See also Clark v New Zealand Police [2024]
The recall application is advanced on the basis the Court may have
misinterpreted the nature and issue underlying the application for habeas corpus. The
recall application also canvasses a range of associated matters, for example, seeking
disqualification of a District Court Judge of any further matters involving the
applicant.
We accept the submission for the respondents that the recall application is in
essence an attempt to relitigate the Court’s reasoning for declining leave. That is
apparent from the fact that, primarily, what the applicant seeks on recall is release from
detention “with ongoing, unlawful bail constraints”. The leave application dealt with
the challenge to the High Court’s refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus in relation to
detention on bail. Relitigation in this manner does not provide a basis for recall.
To the extent new issues are raised, it is relevant that matters have since moved
on. A further application for habeas corpus based similarly on “unlawful detention”
resulting from the conditions of EM bail was declined by the High Court on
12 September 2024.[2] In the judgment declining that application the High Court noted
the applicant was no longer subject to EM bail but was in custody, bail having been
declined.
[2] Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 2644 (Dunningham J).
In all the circumstances we see no basis for recalling our earlier judgment.[3]
[3] See Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; Saxmere Company
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024
(Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondents
NZHC 2078 (Dunningham J).
CLARK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZSC 129 [2 October 2024]
Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd [2008] NZSC 94, (2008) 19 PRNZ 132 at
[1]– [2]; and Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [20].
1
0
0