Rawhiti v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2021] NZHC 3114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

WHANGANUI ROHE

CIV-2021-483-000037

[2021] NZHC 3114

IN THE MATTER OF

an application pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

TAMA RAWHITI APPLICANT

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF WHANGANUI PRISON

Second Respondent

Hearing:	(Determined on the papers)
Judgment:	18 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF EATON J

[1]    By application dated 17 November 2021, Mr Rawhiti applies for a writ of habeas corpus.

[2]    Mr Rawhiti’s application challenges the legality of his detention on a charge described as CRN-21083002245.

[3]    He says that on 8 November 2021 he asked the District Court for information held in the Court’s control and possession. I infer Mr Rawhiti had sought from the Court any evidence filed by the prosecution said to support the charge Mr Rawhiti faces.

RAWHITI v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 3114 [18

November 2021]

[4]    Mr Rawhiti says he has also made an application to the Court for access to court documents. He expresses concern that the police have not filed any evidence or information to justify commencing the proceeding and alleges a breach of s 23(1)(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[5]In his application Mr Rawhiti says:

The only way to have the validity of the arrest and detention and without delay is by asking the court for the evidence or information that was filed at the time the charge was filed which would justify why Police commenced a proceeding on me and, by asking the court for a copy of all evidence or information that was filed by Police after the proceeding was commenced, as that is the only way any proceedings on any person could be justified.

[6]    The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides that applications under the Act “must be given precedence over all other matters before the High Court unless a Judge of that Court considers that the circumstances require otherwise.1

[7]    Section 9(3) of the Act requires the Registrar  to  allocate  a  date  for  the inter partes hearing of an application no later than three working days after the date the application is filed.

[8]Section 14 relevantly provides as follows:

14       Determination of applications

(1)If the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.

(1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

(a)section 15(1) applies; or

(b)an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

1      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 9(1).

[9]    In Edwards v Commissioner of Police2 Cooke J referred to and adopted the approach of Mander J in Greer v Smith as to whether the High Court can dispose of an application for habeas corpus without an inter partes hearing.3 In Greer v Smith Mander J held:

(1)        The question arises as to whether there are any circumstances in which no hearing is necessary. In my view, there are two situations where that may arise. The first is where the narrow exceptions provided by s 14(1A) apply. Thus, where the application is an attempt to relitigate the same, or substantially the same questions as were raised in a previous application, the matter will not be heard by combination of ss 14(1A)(a) and 15(1). The other s 14(1A) ground is where an application for a writ is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

(2)        A second situation where, arguably, no hearing would be necessary is where the application represents an abuse of process warranting invocation of inherent jurisdiction to strike the application out. It may, however, be that having regard to the solemnity and importance of habeas corpus and the statutory framework that now governs such applications, the statute supersedes any such jurisdiction. If that is the case, applications that would otherwise have constituted an abuse are now dealt with under ss 14(1A) and 15(1).

(3)        This summary of the position is, I believe, supported by the work of the Law Commission and the passage of the Habeas Corpus Bill and its amendment through the House.

The present application

[10]   It is clear to me that Mr Rawhiti’s application is not appropriately advanced as an application for habeas corpus and that s 14(1A)(b) applies. Mr Rawhiti is complaining that he has not as yet received disclosure relating to a criminal prosecution. Mr Rawhiti’s right to disclosure is to be found in the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.

[11]   His remedies for a failure to comply with the provisions of that Act does not lie in an application to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus.

[12]   I direct the Registrar to provide a copy of this decision to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and to the Superintendent of Whanganui Prison.

2      Edwards v Commissioner of Police CIV-2021-443-31 [2021] NZHC 615.

3      Greer v Smith [2015] NZHC 326, [2017] NZAR 141.

[13]   The application for the writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.

...................................................
Eaton J

Copies to: Applicant

First Respondent Second Respondent