Maaka v Superintendent of Linton Prison

[2024] NZHC 1904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2024-419-173

[2024] NZHC 1904

JORDAN TE ARA MAAKA

v

SUPERINTENDENT OF LINTON PRISON

Hearing:

10 July 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person on behalf of D J M Mark

K Laurenson and S Cvitanovich for Respondent

Judgment:

10 July 2024

ORAL JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

Habeas Corpus Act 2001

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 July 2024 at 2.30 pm, Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ……………………………

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office

TE ARA MAAKA v SUPERINTENDENT OF LINTON PRISON [2024] NZHC 1904 [10 July 2024]

Introduction

[1]    Jordan Te Ara Maaka makes an application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Mr Darren Joseph Motio Mark. The superintendent takes no issue in respect of standing, noting s 7(4) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). I am invited to consider the application as if made by Mr Mark.

The application

[2]    The grounds on which the application is made relate to the evidence underpinning various Class A drug offending charges for which Mr Mark is currently remanded in custody. In particular Mr Te Ara Maaka submits that:

(a)there have been no scientific reports to date regarding material found at Mr Mark’s property;

(b)there are indications of evidential tampering;

(c)police statements contain inconsistencies;

(d)grounds for wiretapping and surveillance warrants were obtained by officers through Crime Stoppers’ reports and the subsequent NIA notification to Police to investigate.

[3]    These grounds are repeated in four affidavits by Hamilton deponents which are filed in support of the application.

Mr Mark’s current status

[4]    Mr Mark has been in custody on remand at Manawatū Prison pursuant to a warrant of commitment issued by Judge Cocurullo in the Hamilton District Court on 20 June 2024. I have sighted that warrant. He has been subject to a series of remands in custody since 11 March 2024 and has at all times been detained pursuant to lawful warrants of commitment. He faces a number of charges, including for Class A drug offending. On the available information I am uncertain as to whether he has yet applied for bail, but in any event, his current status is as a prisoner lawfully remanded.

[5]    On 2 July 2024 Mr Mark was transferred from Spring Hill Corrections Facility to Manawatū Prison and counsel understands that Mr Mark may be in the process of being transferred to Rimutaka Prison today.

Discussion

[6]    An application for an order for a writ of habeas corpus is made under the Act. It is a challenge to the lawfulness of a person’s detention. Section 14(2) of the Act 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.

[7]In Romanov v Attorney-General this Court said:1

[13] The habeas corpus jurisdiction cannot be invoked to contest a person's continued remand in custody ordered by the District Court in criminal proceedings.

[8]    Neither is the habeas corpus applications the appropriate forum in which to challenge inadequacies in the Crown case. In Helsby-Knight v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections this Court said:2

Ultimately Mr Helsby-Knight seeks to have the charges against him dismissed on the basis of alleged improprieties on the part of the police. Such issues cannot, however, be addressed in the context of a habeas corpus application. The appropriate course is to raise them by way of a pre-trial application in the District Court….

[9]    In substance, this application goes to the quality of the Crown case—matters which will in due course be tested on pre-trial application or at trial. The application does not go to the lawfulness of Mr Mark’s current detention.

1      Romanov v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 672 at [13] (footnotes omitted).

2      Helsby-Knight v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2013] NZHC 3446 at [13].

[10]   The warrants to obtain Mr Mark are valid on their face and provide lawful justification for his continued detention. Where a warrant is produced, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that the document does not in fact provide lawful justification for detention in all the circumstances.3 Mr Mark fails to do so.

Result

[11]I dismiss the application.

Muir J

3      Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].