ALAN IVO GREER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV-2010-485-000098

ALAN IVO GREER V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV- 2010-485-000098 27 January 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2010-485-000098BETWEEN ALAN IVO GREER Applicant AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 27 January 2010 Counsel: Applicant in Person V E Casey for Respondent Judgment: 27 January 2010ORAL JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J[1] The applicant (Mr Greer) seeks a writ of habeas corpus. Mr Greer says his remand in custody by a District Court Judge was unlawful. [2] In Mr Greer's proceedings, the respondent is described as District Court Judge. That is not correct. The respondent is the person in whose custody Mr Greer resides. That is the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. Mr Greer's proceedings will therefore be amended to describe the respondent as the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. [3] On 6 January 2010, Mr Greer was released on parole after a substantial term of imprisonment. The Department of Corrections considered Mr Greer had not complied with his conditions of parole. They charged him with an offence pursuant to s 71 of the Parole Act 2002 of breach of the Parole Board's release conditions. Mr Greer was summonsed to appear at the Masterton District Court on 21 January2010. Mr Greer appeared in Court on that date to answer his summons. He entered a plea of not guilty and elected trial by jury. In a Memorandum filed in support of his application, Mr Greer claims that the "Probation Services" sought conditions of bail for his remand. Mr Greer objected to the conditions of bail sought by Corrections. He sought a remand at large. Mr Greer said that he had told the Court that he would not comply with bail conditions. Ultimately, the District Court Judge presiding remanded Mr Greer in custody, adjourning the proceedings to 10 February 2010. [4] The Department of Corrections has produced the warrant of commitment relating to Mr Greer dated 21 January 2010 signed by the District Court Judge. [5] Mr Greer's complaints are that the Department of Corrections should not have sought conditions of bail and the Judge was wrong to indicate support for such conditions. He says further he should not have been remanded in custody and, in any event, the warrant of commitment is unlawful because it was for greater than eight days without his consent, in breach of statutory provisions. [6] Mr Greer faces the predicament of s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. It provides that in considering such an application a Judge is not entitled to call into question a ruling as to bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction. [7] This challenge to a remand in custody is a challenge to a ruling as to bail (see s 7(5) and s 28 of the Bail Act 2000 and Taylor v Superintendent of the Waikato Bay of Plenty Regional Prison [2002] NZAR 425). [8] The District Court was a Court of competent jurisdiction and the District Court Judge had jurisdiction to remand Mr Greer in custody pursuant to ss 46 and 47 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Section 46 also entitled the Judge to remand Mr Greer for more than eight days in custody without his consent. Mr Greer can challenge the remand in custody by an appeal to the High Court, or a further application for bail in the District Court. Mr Greer will also, however, need to understand that whilst he can make submissions on bail and on the conditions to beimposed on bail, he cannot decide the case himself. I am satisfied that there is no jurisdiction to grant this application. The application will be dismissed. ____________________________ Ronald Young JSolicitors: A I Greer, Rimutaka Prison, PO Box 47-901, Upper Hutt Crown Law, PO Box 2858, Wellington email: victoria.casey@crownlaw.govt.nz