Taylor v Jones - [2006] NZSC 114

For a Court ready (fee required) version, follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 88/2006

[2006] NZSC 113
BETWEENNIKALA JANICE TAYLOR

Appellant

ANDCHRISTOPHER DEAN JONES

Respondent

SC 90/2006
AND BETWEEN KAY HALTON SKELTON

Appellant

ANDCHRISTOPHER DEAN JONES

Respondent

Hearing:6 December 2006

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Counsel:W C Pyke for N J Taylor

D P H Jones QC for K H Skelton
T Sutcliffe and L F Walkington for Respondent

Judgment:6 December 2006
Reasons:19 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

In relation to Mrs N J Taylor:
A Leave to appeal is granted.
BThe order for habeas corpus made by Heath J in the High Court on 18 October 2006 was a final order and accordingly the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal.
CThe appeal is allowed. The orders for habeas corpus and other orders made by the High Court on 18 October 2006, except Order No 9 relating to publication of the name of Nikala J Taylor, are quashed in respect of this appellant.
DThe order for suppression of this appellant’s name, made by the High Court on 18 October 2006, is to lapse at 9 am on 7 December 2006.
EThe sealed affidavit by this appellant, held on the Court file, and any copies, must be returned to Mr W C Pyke.

F Costs are reserved.

In relation to Mrs K H Skelton:
A Leave to appeal is granted.
BThe order for habeas corpus made by Heath J in the High Court on 18 October 2006 was a final order.

C The appeal is dismissed.
D Costs are reserved.

REASONS
(Given by Blanchard J)
[1]       We give reasons for the orders made at the conclusion of the hearing on 6 December 2006.
[2]       Mrs Skelton and Mr Jones have been engaged for some years in a custody dispute over their six year old son, Jayden. The Family Court gave custody to Mr Jones on an interim basis in June 2006. On 18 August Mr Jones’ sister took him to the Hamilton Public Library. He disappeared from the library in the company of a woman said to resemble Mrs Taylor, who is a close friend of Mrs Skelton. Despite efforts by the police he has not been found. There is reason to believe that he is being concealed by Mrs Skelton’s father, Mr Headley.
The habeas corpus orders
[3]       Some two months after Jayden was taken from the library, Mr Jones applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus in relation to Jayden directed to six named persons including Mr Headley, Mrs Skelton and Mrs Taylor. On the next day, 18 October 2006, Heath J gave an oral judgment on that application.[1] After referring to the circumstances of the abduction he said that it was likely, having regard to correspondence that has been sent to the police by Mr Headley, that Jayden is being held by him in a safe location. There was no…

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 Taylor v Jones

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Jones [2006] NZSC 114
Case: [2006] NZSC 114
Decision Date: 19 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Jones involved two appeals against habeas corpus orders made by Heath J in the High Court. The appeals were brought by Nikala Janice Taylor and Kay Halton Skelton, who were among six persons named in the writ of habeas corpus issued in relation to a six-year-old boy, Jayden, who had been taken from a library by a woman who was believed to be Taylor. The Court allowed Taylor's appeal and quashed the orders against her, but dismissed Skelton's appeal and affirmed the orders against her. The central legal issues involved the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal and this Court to hear the appeals, and the merits of the habeas corpus orders themselves. The Court held that the habeas corpus orders were final and appealable under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. The Court also held that Taylor was not amenable to the writ of habeas corpus because she no longer had any ability to influence Jayden's detention by his grandfather, whereas Skelton was amenable because she was likely to have the requisite control over Jayden through her father. The Court emphasised that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used as a means of punishing unlawful conduct but to secure the release of a detained person. The Court concluded that there was no abuse of process or breach of natural justice in the habeas corpus proceeding against Skelton. Skelton's imprisonment for contempt remained in place, as there was no appeal against that order.

Orders