Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 1/2012
[2012] NZSC 16

BETWEEN JAY MAUI WALLACE
Applicant

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ

Counsel: Applicant in person
C A Griffin for Crown

Judgment: 21 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

REASONS

Mr Wallace has been convicted of offences involving violence. He is serving a sentence of five years and three months imprisonment. He has appealed against his conviction and sentence. His appeal is shortly to be heard by the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, he applied to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus. The High Court considered that because Mr Wallace was serving a sentence of imprisonment which had been lawfully imposed upon him and was open to challenge only by way of appeal, s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 precluded the grant of any writ.[1] Mr Wallace appealed against that decision but the Court of Appeal has taken the same view.[2] That position is undoubtedly correct. Whilst the conviction and sentence stand habeas corpus is not available to challenge the imprisonment.
[1]Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-4235, 19 July 2011.
[2]Wallace v Ministry of Justice [2011] NZCA 678.
The procedural and other matters raised by Mr Wallace in his submissions cannot overcome that fundamental point. The proposed appeal therefore cannot succeed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jay Maui Wallace versus the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, the applicant, Mr Wallace, sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Mr Wallace, who has been convicted of violent offences and is serving a sentence of five years and three months imprisonment, applied for the writ while his appeal against his conviction and sentence was pending before the Court of Appeal. The habeas corpus application was dismissed by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal. Mr Wallace then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Mr Wallace's application for habeas corpus could succeed given that he was serving a lawful sentence of imprisonment, which could only be challenged through the appeal process. The court had to consider whether the provisions of section 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 precluded the granting of the writ in these circumstances.

The Supreme Court held that Mr Wallace's application for habeas corpus could not succeed. The court noted that section 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 clearly precluded the grant of a writ of habeas corpus when a person was serving a sentence of imprisonment that had been lawfully imposed and was open to challenge only by way of appeal. The court found that Mr Wallace's procedural and other submissions did not overcome this fundamental point. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court's final order was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. This decision reinforced the principle that habeas corpus is not available to challenge the lawfulness of imprisonment while a lawful sentence is in effect and pending appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established