Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 53/2014
[2014] NZSC 79

BETWEEN	RONALD VAN WAKEREN Applicant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person
Judgment:	24 June 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of judgment is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks recall of the Court’s judgment, delivered on 6 June 2014,[1] dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal rejecting his application for habeas corpus.
[1]van Wakeren v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2014] NZSC 65.
The applicant’s first ground for seeking reconsideration is that the Court did not address in its judgment the validity of the warrant for imprisonment under which he is detained. This is incorrect. In paragraph [8], the Court found that the warrant had been properly issued, in respect of an amended sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal, thus upholding its validity. The second ground is that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was for a term of imprisonment that had expired. That ground, and the remainder of the applicant’s submissions, are no more than a continuation of the arguments he put to the Court which were rejected in its judgment.
There is accordingly no basis for the Court to reconsider its judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal. The application for recall is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald van Wakeren brought an application to the Supreme Court of New Zealand seeking recall of a previous judgment which dismissed his application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal had rejected his application for habeas corpus, which sought to challenge the legality of his detention. The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed van Wakeren's application for leave to appeal, and he now sought to have that decision reconsidered.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there were grounds to recall the earlier judgment dismissing van Wakeren's application for leave to appeal. Van Wakeren argued that the Court had not addressed the validity of the warrant for his imprisonment and that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal had expired. The Court of Appeal had already considered and rejected these arguments. The Supreme Court needed to determine if there were any new or overlooked matters that would justify recalling the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court found that van Wakeren's arguments were essentially a rehash of the points already rejected in the earlier judgment. The Court confirmed that it had indeed addressed the validity of the warrant for imprisonment and found it to be properly issued. The Court also noted that the argument regarding the expiration of the sentence was not a new matter but a repetition of arguments already dismissed. As there were no new grounds or overlooked matters, the Supreme Court dismissed van Wakeren's application for recall of the earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court's final order was that the application for recall of judgment was dismissed. This decision upheld the earlier dismissal of van Wakeren's application for leave to appeal and confirmed the validity of his detention under the warrant issued by the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established