Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2018] NZHC 2380

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV 2018-419-0280

[2018] NZHC 2380

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and related legislation

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY MARTIN SMITH

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:

10 September 2018

Appearances:

Mr Smith, applicant in person

C H Macklin and C H R Harvey for the respondent

Judgment:

11 September 2018

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

This judgment is delivered by me on 11 September 2018 at 11.00 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Gordon Pilditch, Rotorua

And to:

The Applicant

SMITH v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2380 [11 January 2018]

[1]        Mr Smith is detained at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on a warrant of commitment dated 1 June 2018, in the wake of his conviction and sentencing that day for earlier admitted drug offending.

[2]        By application dated 3 September 2016, Mr Smith challenges the legality of his detention. The application follows his comparable pre-sentencing application, dismissed as meritless by Justice Toogood.1

[3]Section 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:

Subject to the rights of appeal conferred by section 16 of this Act and to sections 68 to 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the determination of an application is final and no further application can be made by any person either to the same or to a different Judge on grounds requiring a re-examination by the court of substantially the same questions as those considered by the court when the earlier application was refused.

[4]        Mr Smith’s present application is in large part identical to that considered by Justice Toogood in refusing the earlier application. Its only distinction is in extension (not expansion) of the grounds upon which the earlier application was made, but without any advance on the “nonsensical gibberish” Justice Toogood found made the application an abuse of process.

[5]        The present application would require me to re-examine substantially the same questions as those considered by Justice Toogood. Mr Smith is not entitled to make his present application, which was finally determined by Justice Toogood.

[6]I therefore also dismiss Ms Smith’s present application.

—Jagose J

1      Smith v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 980.