CHADWICK V RIMUTAKA PRISON HC WN CIV-2008-485-762

CHADWICK V RIMUTAKA PRISON HC WN CIV-2008-485-762 17 April 2008IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2008-485-762BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Applicant AND THE SUPERINTENDENT OF RIMUTAKA PRISON Defendant Hearing: 16 April 2008 Counsel: Applicant in person V Casey for Defendant B Yeoman Amicus Curiae Judgment: 17 April 2008REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J[1] Mr Chadwick has been remanded in custody under warrants of commitment issued under s 47 of the Summary of Proceedings Act 1957 by District Court Judges in the District Court at Wellington and Lower Hutt on various dates (27 March 2008, 1 April 2008, 8 April 2008 and 14 April 2008). Those warrants expire on 16 April, 23 April and 16 May. [2] The applicant faces a variety of charges including disorderly behaviour, possession of a knife in a public place, common assault, receiving, speaking threateningly, wilful trespass, failing to answer Police bail and failing to answer a District Court bail. [3] The applicant has applied for a writ of habeas corpus and represented himself. Mr Yeoman had been told by a District Court Judge that he would be appointed amicus curiae but no formal appointment letter had been received by himto date. Accordingly, I regard it proper that he be appointed amicus by this Court so that his reasonable fees could be met. The Court is grateful to him for his assistance. [4] Mr Chadwick advanced a number of grounds or reasons why a writ should be issued under the Habeas Corpus 2001 so as to require his release from the custody of the Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison. I declined the application. The reasons for this are now recorded. [5] The grounds advanced by the applicant included that the offences of which he has been charged "cannot succeed"; his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990 are being abused; his disclosure applications have not been responded to by the Police; the charges must fail, he has been the subject of political sanctions through the New Zealand Government's breach of his rights through poisoning him and subjecting him to illegal surveillance. [6] Other than those grounds the applicant has not been able to point to any evidence or other material to establish what is the essential ground for issue of the writ, namely he is presently being unlawfully detained. [7] It initially appeared to me that the applicant was essentially seeking to challenge decisions refusing to grant him bail. If so s 14(2) prevented this Court calling him to question any ruling as to bail by the District Courts; see Taylor v Superintendent, Waikato Bay of Plenty Prison [2002] NZAR 425. But, Mr Chadwick eventually advised me that he did not want bail because in those circumstances he would be subjected to the further "ingest of poisoned food by the Government". [8] It seems that the applicant had not applied for bail. Section 7(2) provides that the applicant was bailable as of right unless the Court is satisfied that there is just cause for his detention. That is a matter that falls squarely within the ambit of the District Court. The applicant may apply for bail, or not, at his choice. If he is not granted it, he may appeal. If he is granted bail then he of course is released from custody. If he does not wish this to occur, then pursuit of a habeas corpus application is moot and futile.[9] So far as the present application is concerned, however, nothing has been presented to the Court which could possibly suggest, whether it is on matters of fact or law, various warrants issued by Judges committing the applicant to Rimutaka Prison, and remanding him in custody, were unlawfully issued. [10] For those reasons, the application was dismissed."J W Gendall J"Solicitors: Crown Law, Wellington