Smith v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2019] NZHC 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

[2019] NZHC 1054

IN THE MATTER

of review of a Registrar’s decision in the Habeas Corpus hearing of S-I-R-Crown: 1953150853, in body

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY SMITH

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	14 May 2019

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[1]    The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) continues the currency of one of the fundamental instruments under our constitution for safeguarding individual liberty. Applications for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of a person’s detention must be given urgency because of the primacy of the right not to be illegally detained.

[2]    Unfortunately, applications for writs of habeas corpus are made mostly by people who manifestly are not illegally detained, even under the expansive definition of “detention” (which includes every form of restraint of liberty of the person).

SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1054 [14 May 2019]

[3]    Mr Geoffrey Smith is a prison inmate. On 7 May 2018, his application for a writ of habeas corpus was rejected by Toogood J.1

[4]    On 18 May 2018, Mr Smith tried again. Justice Cooke considered the new application to be essentially the same as the application dismissed by Toogood J. Justice Cooke refused to allow the application to proceed pursuant to s 15(1) of the Act which provides the determination of an application is final and no further application can be made by any person 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.

[5]    Earlier this year, Mr Smith attempted to file unintelligible documents which referred to the Habeas Corpus Act. On 21 March 2019, Lang J directed the Registrar not to accept the documents for filing.

[6]    Nothing daunted, Mr Smith has made two further attempts to gain a habeas corpus hearing. The first attempt was on 3 May 2019 and rejected for filing by the registry which relied on a direction in Toogood J’s judgment to the effect no further application for habeas corpus would be accepted for filing without the leave of a Judge of the Court.

[7]    On 13 May 2019, Mr Smith attempted to file again the same document, this time with an accompanying document submitting the registry failed to follow due process. In it Mr Smith submits Toogood J’s restriction on filing further applications has expired because he is now held under a new warrant of detention and so has a further right to question the validity of the warrant of detention. Mr Smith is correct that Toogood J’s restriction no longer applies.

[8]    The registry has referred Mr Smith’s “application” to me for a direction as to whether it should be accepted for filing as an application for habeas corpus.

[9]    I have examined the document Mr Smith wishes the registry to receive. Although it makes reference to habeas corpus, it is not an application for a writ of

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

habeas corpus. First, it is not an originating application as required by s 7(1) of the Act. In appropriate cases that would not matter, but the body of the document says:

2. This is not a challenge to the legality of the detention of a legal person/company entity.

[10]   Second, there is, as far as I can see, no application for any relief from the Court at all. The only paragraph which hints at a dispute is:

3.Judge Cooper has ruled identification, contract between the living and the person, contract between the living and the Court to exercise its jurisdiction are required and have not been produced.

[11]   I am satisfied the “application” produced for filing by Mr Smith should not be accepted for filing because it is unintelligible and does not comply with any of the High Court Rules for the filing of documents.

[12]   Even if the document did contain something recognisable as an application for habeas corpus, the issue (if it can be said to be such) relating to Judge Cooper in the passage I have just quoted would not be an issue for which habeas corpus is the appropriate procedure.2

[13]   Finally, this is not a case where due procedure should be put aside in recognition of the constitutional purpose of habeas corpus. Mr Smith’s documents are gibberish. To accept them and somehow act on them would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

[14]I direct the registry not to accept the documents for filing.

Brewer J

2      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A).