TURANGA TAYLOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

[2024] NZHC 2898

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2024-419-308

[2024] NZHC 2898

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of habeas corpus

BETWEEN

TURANGA TAYLOR

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Hearing:

4 October 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person

L Glaser for the Respondent

Judgment:

7 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 October 2024 at 12 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:

Hamilton Legal, Hamilton Copy to:                 Applicant

TAYLOR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2024] NZHC 2898 [7

October 2024]

[1]                 An application for a writ of habeas corpus dated 2 October 2024 was made on behalf of the applicant, Turanga Taylor.

[2]                 The application names the Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison as the respondent. The correct respondent is the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Chief Executive).1 I direct that amendment be made to the proceeding.

[3]                 The application is opposed by the Chief Executive. The Crown Solicitor at Hamilton, acting on behalf of the Chief Executive, filed a memorandum of submissions in opposition to the application.

[4]                 When the application was called Mr Taylor appeared by audio-visual link (AVL) from Rimutaka Prison. He claimed to have no knowledge of the application, became agitated and left the AVL booth.

[5]                 It emerged that the application had been drafted and filed by Cheryl Tutaki, who was present in the Court. The Court spoke to Ms Tutaki, who said she was a cousin of Mr Taylor. She said she had earlier raised the prospect of filing an application for habeas corpus with Mr Taylor but he did not really understand what she was saying. She said that she had not told him she had filed the application.

[6]                 The Court directed that Mr Taylor be brought back to the AVL booth. When he reappeared I informed him of the position as explained to the Court by Ms Tutaki and said that the Court was prepared to hear submissions from Ms Tutaki in support of the application. Mr Taylor remained in the AVL booth while those submissions were made.

[7]                 Having heard Ms Tutaki’s submissions, the Court did not call upon counsel for the Chief Executive to address the Court.

[8]                 I made an order refusing the application for habeas corpus and said that my reasons would follow. These are my reasons.

1      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 8.

Relevant legal principles

[9]                 The onus is on the Chief Executive to establish that the detention of Mr Taylor is lawful.2 If the Chief Executive fails to establish that the detention is lawful, the Court must grant, as a matter of right, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.3

[10]              A Judge dealing with the application must enquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention.4

Background

[11]              Mr Taylor faces a number of charges arising from three separate prosecutions, prosecuted by the Crown and Police. The Crown Charge Notice includes charges of offering to supply methamphetamine, offering to sell cannabis, failing to carry out obligations in relation to a computer system search and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition.

[12]              The charges prosecuted by the Police include threatening to kill, theft of property and assault with intent to injure (Huntly file). The second Police file (Hamilton file) includes charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and procuring/possessing methamphetamine as well as other charges.

[13]              On 8 August 2024 Mr Taylor appeared in the District Court at Hamilton before Judge P P Crayton seeking readmission to electronically monitored (EM) bail.5 He was represented by counsel. Mr Taylor had been on EM bail but had been arrested for a breach of that bail.

[14]              Judge Crayton traversed Mr Taylor’s recent bail history in some detail. In the end, the Judge determined that Mr Taylor could not meet the onus on him under s 17A of the Bail Act 2000 and was satisfied there was just cause for Mr Taylor’s continued

2      Habeas Corpus Act, s 14(1).

3      Section 14(1).

4      Section 14(2).

5      New Zealand Police v Taylor [2024] NZDC 18846.

detention under s 8 of the Bail Act. Bail was declined and Judge Crayton remanded Mr Taylor in custody to next appear on 22 August 2024.6

[15]There has been no appeal filed against the decision of Judge Crayton.

[16]              On 22 August 2024 Judge T V Clark, sitting in the District Court at Hamilton, issued a warrant of detention in relation to the Huntly file, remanding Mr Taylor in custody to next appear at the Huntly District Court on 14 January 2025.

[17]              There is a second warrant of detention relating to the Hamilton file, which was issued by Judge L M Bidois in the Hamilton District Court dated 9 September 2024. Under that warrant, Mr Taylor was remanded in custody to next appear in the Hamilton District Court on 21 November 2024.

Discussion

[18]              The claim on behalf of Mr Taylor is that he is illegally detained in custody and that he is innocent until proven guilty. The document that accompanies the application includes the statement: “Appeal the District Court Judges [sic] decision for refusal to grant bond”.

[19]              Section 14(1A) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (Act) provides that the High Court may refuse an application if the Court is satisfied that a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant. In this case, the appropriate procedure would be an appeal against the District Court Judge’s refusal to grant EM bail (accompanied by an application for leave to appeal out of time).

[20]              Further, s 14(2)(b) expressly provides that subs (2) does not entitle the Judge to call into question a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[21]              Accordingly, by virtue of both s 14(1A) and s 14(2)(b) of the Act, the application fails.

6 At [30].

[22]              But in any event, the two warrants of detention referred to in this decision are proof of the existence of court orders for Mr Taylor’s detention.7

Result

[23]              For the above reasons the application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking an order for the release of Mr Taylor from detention was refused.

Gordon J

7      R v Fisher HC Auckland T236/95, 4 October 1995 at 8.