A I GREER V THE PRISON MANAGER OF RIMUTAKA PRISON CA CA498/2008
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's complaints did not challenge the legality of his detention, habeas corpus was therefore inappropriate, and the proceedings were repetitious and devoid of merit; costs were ordered.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-2b05212e_2bf2_4ffe_9a72_d4d0fd798a0f.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Alan Ivo Greer; Respondent: The Prison Manager of Rimutaka Prison
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 August 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application Appeal / Court of Appeal Oral Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Legality of Detention, Access to Legal Materials, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Alan Ivo Greer
Appellant
The Prison Manager of Rimutaka Prison
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application Appeal / Court of Appeal Oral Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant's complaints about treatment and access to legal materials impeach the legality of his detention
- 2 Whether habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for complaints about prison treatment
- 3 Whether the proceedings were repetitious or an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's complaints did not challenge the legality of his detention, habeas corpus was therefore inappropriate, and the proceedings were repetitious and devoid of merit; costs were ordered.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $500.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
A I GREER V THE PRISON MANAGER OF RIMUTAKA PRISON CA CA498/2008 26 August 2008IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA498/2008 [2008] NZCA 331BETWEEN ALAN IVO GREER Appellant AND THE PRISON MANAGER OF RIMUTAKA PRISON Respondent Hearing: 26 August 2008 Court: William Young P, Hammond and Ellen France JJ Counsel: Appellant in Person C C Inglis and C A Griffin for Respondent Judgment: 26 August 2008ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $500.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by William Young P)Introduction[1] This is an appeal against a judgment of Gendall J dismissing an application for habeas corpus: HC WN CIV-2008-485-1554 24 July 2008.[2] The appellant is currently serving a sentence of seven years imprisonment imposed upon him on 14 July 2004. A subsequent appeal to this Court was dismissed as was a later application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. [3] The appellant's primary complaints about what is happening to him are set out at [11] of the judgment under appeal. They plainly do not relate to the legality of his imprisonment; rather they address his treatment by Corrections staff. His primary focus in argument before us was on his lack of access to computer facilities and law books. All of this is subject to judicial review proceedings which are presently scheduled, he told us, to be the subject of a judicial telephone conference on 1 September. [4] As Gendall J correctly held (at [14]-[15]) the appellant's complaints, if justified, do not impeach the validity of his detention. Further, as carefully explained, these proceedings are repetitious in that substantially similar arguments have been the subject of many earlier and unsuccessful applications (see [20]). In short, this appeal is devoid of merit. [5] The appeal is dismissed. [6] We direct that the appellant pay the respondent costs of $500, an order which we see as justified in the particular circumstances of this case given what was said by this Court in Manuel v Superintendent, Hawkes Bay Regional Prison [2006] 2 NZLR 63 at [35].Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington