Misiuk v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 105/2010
[2010] NZSC 140
BETWEENPAWEL MARIAN MISIUK
Applicant

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Respondent

Court:Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJ
Counsel:Appellant in Person
J C Pike for Crown

Judgment:16 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       This application for habeas corpus is principally based on the failure of the High Court to issue a warrant to detain the applicant under s 44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 after Winkelmann J revoked his bail (in his presence). The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the deficiency had been overtaken by successive subsequent warrants issued by the District Court. It rejected arguments that the whole process was tainted. The Court declined to go into the effect of the original error concluding that it had to address the lawfulness of detention at the time of the Court’s hearing.
[2]       The Court of Appeal’s approach, which focused on the time that the application was heard, was correct. The writ can only issue if, at the time of its issue, the detention is unlawful. We are satisfied that at that time the applicant was validly detained. Although there are other complaints by the applicant concerning the process, we are satisfied that none of them alters the validity of his detention.
[3]       The application for leave to appeal is refused as the appeal has no prospect of success.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Misiuk v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections was heard by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Pawel Marian Misiuk, sought habeas corpus on the basis of a perceived failure by the High Court to issue a warrant for his detention under section 44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 after his bail had been revoked by Winkelmann J. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled that the deficiency had been rectified by subsequent warrants issued by the District Court and that the entire process was not tainted. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the lawfulness of the applicant's detention at the time of the Court’s hearing and whether the original error affected the validity of the detention.

The legal issues before the court included whether the failure to issue a warrant under section 44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 rendered the applicant's detention unlawful and whether the subsequent warrants issued by the District Court could rectify the initial error. The Court of Appeal's approach, which concentrated on the lawfulness of detention at the time of the Court’s hearing, was deemed correct by the Supreme Court. The court found that the writ could only issue if the detention was unlawful at the time of its issuance. The Supreme Court was satisfied that the applicant was validly detained at the time of the hearing, and that none of the applicant's other complaints concerning the process altered the validity of his detention.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, concluding that the appeal had no prospect of success. The Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal that the applicant's detention was lawful at the time of the hearing, and that the subsequent warrants issued by the District Court had rectified the initial error. The Court found no merit in the applicant's arguments that the entire process was tainted or that the validity of his detention was affected by the failure to issue the initial warrant. The Court's judgment was that the applicant's detention remained lawful, and thus the application for habeas corpus was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established