Parker v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA235/2022
[2022] NZCA 316

BETWEEN	DAVID RICHARD PARKER Appellant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	9 June 2022
Court:	Katz, Thomas and Woolford JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person A W Britton for Respondent
Judgment:	15 July 2022 at 9:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

David Richard Parker appeals against a decision of Palmer J dated 10 May 2022 dismissing his application under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 challenging the legality of his detention.[1] Mr Parker is unrepresented. He appeared by way of audio visual link from Rimutaka Prison where he is currently detained.

Initial difficulty for Mr Parker

[1]Parker v Department of Corrections [2022] NZHC 987.

The initial difficulty for Mr Parker is that he appears to be in lawful custody pursuant to a warrant to detain him issued by Judge RE Neave in the Christchurch District Court on 22 April 2022. The warrant directs the Manager of Rimutaka Prison to detain Mr Parker and bring him back to the Wellington District Court on 25 July 2022 to answer further to three specified criminal charges.
Mr Parker also appears to acknowledge the legality of his detention. In his Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal to this Court dated 16 May 2022, apparently drafted by his father, Mr Parker states:
The applicant was aware that the warrant for detention held by the Department of Corrections was legal and therefore not an avenue for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.
In what appears to be his own handwriting, Mr Parker has written on the Leave to Appeal form:
This is the general gist of the “Apeal”, Dad didn’t understand some of it; but he did his best; [therefore] It is not the whole Act and Acts; Can(‘t) wait till we get to the whole “truth”; and nothing but the truth; Your sincerely David Richard Parker 19 May 2022

Mr Parker’s arguments

The Department of Corrections has provided a copy of the warrant to detain Mr Parker to the Court. Mr Parker’s argument does not challenge the existence and terms of the warrant, however. In wide-ranging and discursive submissions, Mr Parker makes a number of complaints about his current predicament.
In a seven-page handwritten submission timed and dated 11.05 pm on 1 June, Mr Parker complains of his treatment in prison, in particular, misconduct charges which were heard or are to be heard by a Visiting Justice and his placement in a Management Unit with no access to legal documents or counsel. He also complains of the inadequacy of bedding, clothing and food and a lack of books to read.
Mr Parker also seeks disclosure of unspecified documentation held by Corrections, Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority and New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, as well as his complete medical records.
He queries why the respondent in this proceeding was changed from New Zealand Police or Crown to Corrections.
Mr Parker criticises a Minute issued by this Court dated 20 May 2022 and seeks to have the matter investigated and referred to the “Treaty of Waitangi Commission”, the “Commission of Bill of Right” and the “Nation body in charge of the Prevention of Torture” as stipulated by the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.
Mr Parker submits that his appeal should be heard by a full panel of Supreme Court Judges. He complains about being unable to contact the Ombudsman and a range of other issues. He says he has been kidnapped so many times and police allow it to happen.
Then in a one-page handwritten submission dated 7 June, Mr Parker says that he has been proved innocent of most of his charges or has pleaded guilty under duress. He also annexes copies of incident information reports, misconduct reports, prisoner misconduct acknowledgement forms, a decision of a Visiting Justice and emails as examples of “Black Kangaroo Process”.

Discussion

In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison, this Court held that once a prison superintendent or other official produces a committal warrant or other authorisation, the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must show why the warrants are not sufficient answer to his application:[2]
[70] … In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation … it would then be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances.
[2]Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].
The onus, therefore, shifts to Mr Parker to show why the warrant produced by the Crown does not provide a lawful basis for his detention. The matters raised by Mr Parker either singularly or in combination do not call into question the legality of his detention.
We are satisfied that the warrant to detain produced by the Crown demonstrates a lawful basis for Mr Parker’s detention. Mr Parker has not advanced any arguments that might justify a conclusion that his detention is unlawful. The matters raised by him should be addressed through bail or trial processes or other avenues.

Result