Peters (aka Rahipere, aka Lawrence

[2022] NZHC 2825

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2045

[2022] NZHC 2825

UNDER

The Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for a writ of Habeas Corpus

BETWEEN

LAWRENCE SILVIA PETERS (also known as LAWRENCE RAHIPERE and/or

Lawrence < living man >) Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

On the papers:

At Auckland

Appearances:

The Applicant in person

H L Botha for the Respondent

Judgment:

31 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Habeas Corpus]

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2022 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

LAWRENCE SILVIA PETERS (also known as LAWRENCE RAHIPERE and/or Lawrence < living man >) v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 2825 [31 October 2022]

[1]    On 25 October 2022 the applicant Lawrence Silvia Peters (also known as Lawrence Rahipere and/or Lawrence < living man>) applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus. There is no dispute that Mr Peters is currently remanded in custody and despite being given an opportunity to do so has not provided any reasons for challenging his detention.

[2]    From information provided by Ms Botha on behalf of the respondent it appears Mr Peters has been remanded in custody pursuant to a warrant to detain signed by Judge N R Webby on 19 October 2022 after his Judge alone trial on various offences was adjourned part heard. The warrant specifies Mr Peters is to remain in custody until his trial resumes on 7 November 2022 albeit it appears he was granted a compassionate release on 27 October 2022 and was due to return to the Mount Eden Corrections facility at 10 am on 31 October 2022.

[3]    The warrant provides a conclusive answer to the application and in the circumstances, there is no need for a hearing. As the Court of Appeal noted in Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison:1

We are aware that, in formal terms, the burden of proof rests on the applicant for judicial review, whereas it is for the respondent to an application for habeas corpus to justify the detention. We are aware also that a writ of habeas corpus must be issued if the respondent does not prove the lawfulness of the detention

… In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named as respondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation – as the respondents have done in this case … – 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.

[4]    As Mr Peters has taken no issue with the warrant in this case, it therefore follows that Mr Peters detention is lawful and, as a result, his application must be, and is, dismissed.

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

Powell J