Simonsen v Rimutaka Prison - [2020] NZHC 1221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-252

[2020] NZHC 1221

UNDER THE Habeas Corpus Act 2001

BETWEEN

JACOB SIMONSEN

Applicant

AND

RIMUTAKA PRISON

Respondent

Hearing: 29 May 2020

Appearances:

Applicant in Person (AVL) Ms Lawson for Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2020

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Overview1

[1] The applicant who is called Jacob, is presently remanded in Rimutaka Prison under s 168(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on two charges: one of threatening a person2 and one of dishonestly taking or using a document.3 Jacob was first remanded under a warrant dated 12 March 2020 and the further warrant which has been produced to the Court is dated 28 April 2020. It directs Jacob’s detention until 3 June 2020 when he is to appear via AVL in the Hamilton District Court.

1      This decision was delivered orally on 29 May 2020. The written form has been edited and footnoted before distribution.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 307A; maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.
3      Section 228; maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

JACOB SIMONSEN v RIMUTAKA PRISON [2020] NZHC 1221 [29 May 2020]

[2] In the warrant Jacob is referred to as Jacob Peter Midi Simonsen. Today Jacob clarified the fact that he is in fact Jacob and should be referred by that name which I will do accordingly.

[3] I also note that the warrant of 28 April 2020 incorrectly refers to the section of the Crimes Act for the charge of threatening a person as s 307 when it should be a reference to s 307A. This is clearly an error and in my view is a minor error which does not invalidate the warrant. It is clear from the face of the warrant what the charges are.

[4] Jacob clarified today that it was not a writ of habeas corpus from this Court that he was seeking. He explained that the Crown Bench of the Court of Jacob (Court of Jacob) has given a direction to Corrections that he be released. He says today that this Court should uphold that direction to Corrections for his release. This is on the basis that this Court should uphold the rule of law.

[5] Ms Lawson for Corrections indicated that with the clarification today of Jacob’s view of what was before this Court she was able to advise that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections does not accept the direction from the Court of Jacob for Jacob’s release.

[6] As I explained to Jacob this Court’s obligation is to administer the laws of New Zealand. That does not include enforcement of the orders of the Court of Jacob. Therefore I propose dealing with this matter as an application for habeas corpus.

[7] I note at the outset that William, who explained that he was the principal for the Estate of William Henry Turner, had been in discussions with Jacob and had sought leave to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Simonsen v Rimutaka Prison

Details

AGLC: Simonsen v Rimutaka Prison [2020] NZHC 1221
Case: [2020] NZHC 1221
Decision Date: 29 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Jacob Simonsen, sought his release from Rimutaka Prison where he was detained under s 168(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 on charges of threatening a person and dishonestly taking or using a document. Simonsen clarified that he was not seeking a writ of habeas corpus from the High Court, but rather enforcement of a writ issued by the Court of Jacob. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections opposed the application, arguing that Simonsen's detention was lawful, and that a writ of habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge the criminal charges or detention conditions.

The court had to decide whether Simonsen's detention was unlawful and if habeas corpus was the appropriate procedure for his claims. The court found that Simonsen had not discharged the onus to show his detention was unlawful. The warrant for detention was deemed lawful, and the minor error in the warrant did not invalidate it. Simonsen's claims about the prosecution case and detention conditions could not be addressed in habeas corpus proceedings. The court concluded that habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure for Simonsen's claims, and dismissed the application.

The High Court dismissed Simonsen's application for habeas corpus, noting that it did not recognise the writ issued by the Court of Jacob and that it was not binding on the Department of Corrections. The court emphasised that Simonsen would have the opportunity to run his defences when the charges were heard.

Orders