Tranter v Executive Director of Department of Corrections

[2018] NZHC 2764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV 2018-485-779

[2018] NZHC 2764

BETWEEN

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER

Applicant

AND

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

On the papers
Judgment:	24 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

[1]                  Mr Tranter is subject to a sentence of preventive detention following his convictions for sexual offending.1 An appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.2 An application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed.3 He is currently detained in Rimutaka prison. His detention is pursuant to a warrant dated 5 February 2016 signed by the High Court Judge who sentenced him.

[2]                  On 23 October 2018 the High Court received a letter submitting an “enclosed Application for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001”. The enclosed application states that the application is for “release on Bail Pending Hearing of Appeal”. This application is supported by a detailed “Submission for Relief under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001”. This document sets out Mr Tranter’s belief that a serious miscarriage of justice has occurred and that his application for habeas corpus should be granted to

1      R v Tranter [2016] NZHC 111 (Sentencing Remarks of Gendall J).

2      Tranter v R [2017] NZCA 45.

3      Tranter v R [2017] NZSC 187.

TRANTER v EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2764

[24 October 2018]

allow his suffering to stop. The document sets out the reasons why he considers a serious miscarriage occurred.

[3]                  Because the application purported to be for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, the application was treated urgently by the registry and, as is the usual procedure, the documents were provided to Crown Law for any submissions in response they might wish to make. Written submissions were received today. These submissions inform the Court of the background to Mr Tranter’s application, namely that he is detained pursuant to a valid warrant, he has made previous applications for habeas corpus on substantially the same grounds, and that Mr Tranter’s application is one for bail. For completeness, Crown Law should provide a copy of their submissions to Mr Tranter if they have not already done so.

[4]                  I have reviewed Mr Tranter’s letter and supporting materials. In short, he alleges there is evidence that shows a miscarriage occurred. He refers to: abuse allegations against him which were investigated and proven to be false; evidence that a complainant was in custody at the time the abuse was said to have occurred; evidence about the small size of the room where he was alleged to have raped a complainant; and allegations a complainant and some of the witnesses committed perjury.

[5]                  Mr Tranter’s application is substantially the same as was considered by Nation J on 12 January 2016 and Nicholas Davidson J on 16 April 2018.4 As they said, on an application for habeas corpus a court will not enquire into a conviction entered by a court of competent jurisdiction.5 Moreover, no further application can be made 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.6

[6]                  If Mr Tranter wishes to seek leave to appeal his conviction on grounds of miscarriage of justice not already considered by the Court of Appeal, his leave application would be to that Court. If he wishes to seek bail pending any such appeal, his application would be to the Court of Appeal or the Judge who presided at the trial

4      Tranter v R [2018] NZHC 681 and R v Tranter HC Christchurch, CIV-2016-409-3, 12 January 2016.

5      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14.

6      Section 15.

in the High Court.7 He can pursue those courses if he wishes to do so. He cannot continue to seek to use the habeas corpus procedure for these purposes.

[7]                  Mr Tranter’s covering letter requested a hearing. He considered there could not be a fair hearing unless he was permitted to present his case and evidence at such a hearing. However a hearing is not appropriate. His application is not one properly brought under the Habeas Corpus Act and accordingly it is appropriately dealt with on the papers.

[8]His application for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act is dismissed.

Mallon J

7      Bail Act 2000, s 55.