McVeagh v Attorney-General

In the case of McVeagh v Attorney-General, the plaintiff, Mr McVeagh, sought to amend his statement of claim to include additional allegations of breaches of the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 and claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Habeas Corpus Act 1640, which was in force in New Zealand until 2001, could be invoked to support the plaintiff's claims for damages and declarations arising from alleged failures by High Court Judges to hear and determine writs of habeas corpus in 1985 and 1989.

The court examined whether the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 was applicable to the plaintiff's situation, considering its historical context and the subsequent legislative changes in New Zealand. O'Regan J had previously ruled that the 1640 Act did not apply to the circumstances presented. The court also considered the implications of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 and the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, which affected the application of the 1640 Act in New Zealand. Furthermore, the court assessed the relevance of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the plaintiff's claims. The court concluded that the plaintiff's proposed amendments did not sufficiently address the legal basis for invoking the 1640 Act and that the new claims under the other statutes presented distinct issues that were not adequately supported by the existing evidence or legal arguments.

In light of these considerations, the court denied leave to amend the statement of claim. The court found that the proposed amendments did not provide a sufficient basis for invoking the Habeas Corpus Act 1640 and that the new claims under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights were not adequately substantiated. The court's decision was based on the lack of a clear legal foundation for the plaintiff's claims and the absence of new evidence or arguments that would warrant reconsideration of the previous ruling.