BRUCE v THE PRISON DIRECTOR, MANAWATU PRISON [2022] NZHC 2405

BRUCE v THE PRISON DIRECTOR, MANAWATU PRISON [2022] NZHC 2405 [20 September 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDPALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE PAPAIOEA ROHECIV-2022-454-70[2022] NZHC 2405UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN BRANDON RAWIRI BRUCEApplicantAND THE PRISON DIRECTOR, MANAWATUPRISONRespondentHearing: 13 September 2022Appearances: Mr Bruce in personH R Hancock for the RespondentJudgment: 20 September 2022JUDGMENT OF COOKE J(Declining habeas corpus)[1] By writ dated 10 September 2022 the applicant sought an order under theHabeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). Mr Bruce is currently detained at ManawatuPrison. The essence of his application was that the warrant for his detention, and theassociated charging documents, were in the wrong name.[2] The application was referred to me as Duty Judge, and in accordance with thetime requirements set by the Act I had a telephone hearing on 13 September. Afterhearing from Mr Bruce and counsel for the respondent I indicated that the applicationwould be dismissed for reasons I would outline in writing. These are the reasons.[3] Section 14 of the Act provides:14 Determination of applications(1) If the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detainedperson is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writof habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person fromdetention.(1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application forthe issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish thatthe detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfiedthat—(a) section 15(1) applies; or(b) an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is notthe appropriate procedure for considering the allegations madeby the applicant.(2) A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters offact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in thatenquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsectiondoes not entitle a Judge to call into question—(a) a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction,the Court Martial of New Zealand established under section 8of the Court Martial Act 2007, or a disciplinary officer actingunder Part 5 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971; or(b) a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.(3) Subject to section 13(2), a Judge must determine an application by—(a) refusing the application for the issue of the writ; or(b) issuing the writ ordering the release from detention of thedetained person.[4] In the present case the respondent has produced documents that show that theapplicant has been charged with a series of offences, including two charges ofstrangulation and one of assault of a person in a family relationship. Those documentsreveal that he first appeared in the Hamilton District Court on 12 April 2022, and thatafter two further hearings he made an application for EM bail on 6 July in the LevinDistrict Court which was declined. Following a further case review hearing before theCourt on 22 July he was remanded in custody until a Judge-alone trial on 21 November2022.[5] The respondent produced the warrant for the applicant's detention until21 November 2022, signed by Judge Edwards on 22 July 2022.[6] Once the respondent has produced apparently valid warrants for the detention,it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate why the detention is not lawful.1 Theapplicant's argument here is that these documents, including the warrant of detention,are all in the wrong legal name, and that his correct legal name is Brendan RawiriBruce rather than Brendan Arthur Norman Thomas as used in the documentation. Inresponse the respondent referred me to materials that shows that the applicant has useda number of aliases or other names over some time. This explains the different namesin existence. In any event the dispute about the name used in the formal Courtdocuments does not mean that the applicant's detention is not lawful. I am satisfiedthat the person charged with the offending and subject to the Court determinations,including the most recent decision remanding him in custody, is the applicant. He isthe person who has been charged with strangulation and assault on a person in a familyrelationship, and he is the person who identified himself as Brendan Bruce on hisarrest. The fact that different names have been used in the charging documents isneither here nor there. For this reason I view this case as being in the same categoryas that considered by Muir J in Bowden v Chief Executive of the Department ofCorrections.2[7] For these reasons the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.Cooke JSolicitors:Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for the Respondent1 Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70]; Manuel vSuperintendent, Hawkes Bay Regional Prison [2005] 1 NZLR 161 (CA) at [49].2 Bowden v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2504.