Tranter v R

[2018] NZHC 681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-218 [2018] NZHC 681

BETWEEN

DAVID STANLEY TRANTER

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:	16 April 2018 (On the Papers)
Judgment:	16 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J

[1]                 Mr Tranter  has  made  an  application  for  relief  “under  the  Habeas  Corpus Act 2001”, lodged with the Court on 12 April 2018.

[2]                 He begins by saying that this Court must enquire into matters of fact and law which justify his detention in prison and the Court is not confined to the correction  of jurisdictional errors. He recognises that this Court cannot call into question a conviction which has been entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, but he says the trial Court was “incompetent”, albeit “unwillingly” if his conviction is found to be entered “on false and misleading information, given to said Court by Complain[a]nts and or witnesses”.

[3]Mr Tranter says he now has possession of documents:

…that will prove that he could not have committed the offences alledged, and that the decision made by that Court was made upon false and misleading information, Hence Applicants claim of incompetence.

TRANTER v THE QUEEN [2018] NZHC 681 [16 April 2018]

[4]                 Mr Tranter’s trial commenced on 27 October 2015 and he was convicted on  3 November 2015. He was sentenced on 5 February 2016. He says he knew then there were documents held on files which assisted his defence about which he says “Crown Law” said Mr Tranter lied to the jury.

[5]                 In particular, these documents included an allegation said to be made by a complainant at Rangiora. Mr Tranter says he now has copies of parts of the file held by the Ministry of Social  Development  (“MSD”),  of  allegations  made  against  Mr Tranter at Rangiora in 1983. Mr Tranter says there are other documents that  show female complainants/witnesses at trial “had to commit perjury” to result in his convictions

[6]                 Hence, he says the convictions are unsafe and in the interests of “public safety and justice” they should be vacated and his application granted.

[7]                 Mr Tranter says he has attempted to file four charging documents against the complainants/witnesses, but he has been unsuccessful in different ways. He alleges their perjury, and he questions whether there is “… too much influence over [the] Registrar by Crown Law and or N.Z. Police to refuse the filing of Perjury charges.”, hence this application.

[8]                 Mr Tranter wants the opportunity to produce and explain fully the relevance of the documents to which he refers, and he says only then will justice be seen to be done. Mr Tranter asks the Court to “approve this writ of Habeas Corpus immediately”. He seeks to produce and explain the documents to which he refers, “released to him by M.S.D. and solicitors and N.Z. Police. Since Trial, and Appeals”.

Discussion

[9]                 On 12 January 2016, Nation J, in this Court, issued a Minute which refers to an application by Mr Tranter for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. It seems that application made on similar grounds but it is possible that Mr Tranter has obtained further documents beyond those referred to in that Minute.

[10]             Nation J refers to the 2016 application as founded on Mr Tranter having been found guilty of several offences involving a named complainant and two other complainants. He told the Court that following requests for information, before trial, he was advised by the District Court at Rangiora, the Police, and the Family Court, that they held no files relating to allegations made against him by the named complainant. He then found out from M.S.D. that it held files relating to him and he received a page from a file held by Child and Young Persons Services (“CYPS”). This referred to allegations made by the complainant, but on 8 March 1983 these were “withdrawn” after consultation with NZ Police.

[11]             Mr Tranter said because allegations were “withdrawn by consent” in 1983, the charges on which he was found guilty involving the named complainant, should never have been brought, under the principle of “double jeopardy”, so the verdict should be vacated and charges withdrawn/dismissed.

[12]             At that time (January 2016), Mr Tranter said he was trying to get information about the other two complainants, but he had discovered evidence to be presented at a Court of Appeal hearing. He said that if the jury had that information in 2016 (and now by extension in 2018), it would have come “to a totally different verdict” on all charges in respect of all three complainants.

[13]             Nation J referred to legal principle whereby this Court, on an application for habeas corpus, will not enquire into a conviction entered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The substance of Mr Tranter’s application made in 2016, was to challenge his convictions, not that detention was unlawful as a result of those convictions.

Discussion

[14]             Proceedings under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, do not of themselves lead to a quashing of conviction/s. The applications in 2016 and in this instance are not based on an allegation of unlawful detention as the result of no lawful conviction having been entered.

[15]             Mr Tranter wants to have his convictions set aside on appeal, and I must give the same ruling as did Nation J, because this is not an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus based on an allegation of unlawful detention as the law requires it. As did Nation J, I point to Mr Tranter’s entitlement to pursue his arguments on appeal against his convictions. Mr Tranter should take the correct legal course. He clearly feels he has been wrongly convicted, given that he now says he has evidence which goes directly to that.

Disposition

[16]The application is dismissed.

…………………………………….

Nicholas Davidson J

Copy to:

Mr Tranter

Crown Law, Constitutional & Human Rights Team (Daniel Perkins),