Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 80/2012
[2012] NZSC 100

BETWEEN KYUNG YUP KIM
Appellant

AND THE PRISON MANAGER, MT EDEN CORRECTIONS FACILITY
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers and Glazebrook JJ

Counsel: T Ellis and G K Edgeler for Appellant
A M Powell and D J Perkins for Respondent

Judgment: 16 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted.

BThe approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The other proposed grounds raised by the appellant concern matters which are premature at this stage of the proceedings.

Solicitors:
Carole Curtis, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kyung Yup Kim, an appellant, sought to appeal against a decision made by the Courts below which dismissed his proceeding on the grounds that the alleged deficiencies in his request to surrender and application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application. The respondent, the Prison Manager of Mt Eden Corrections Facility, was the other party involved in this legal dispute. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, consisting of Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, and Glazebrook JJ, was the court that heard the case. The appellant was represented by T Ellis and G K Edgeler, while the respondent was represented by A M Powell and D J Perkins.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the lower Courts were correct in dismissing the appellant's proceeding, given that the alleged deficiencies in his request to surrender and application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application. The court also considered other proposed grounds raised by the appellant, which they deemed premature at that stage of the proceedings. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of habeas corpus law and the specific circumstances that led to the dismissal of the appellant's proceeding.

The Supreme Court granted the appellant leave to appeal and approved the ground concerning whether the lower Courts were correct in dismissing the proceeding. The Court's judgment, delivered on 16 November 2012, focused on the suitability of the alleged deficiencies in the habeas corpus application. The other proposed grounds raised by the appellant were deemed premature and did not form part of the Court's decision. The appellant was represented by Carole Curtis of Auckland, while the respondent was represented by the Crown Law Office of Wellington.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established