BUTCHER v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 910
The application for a writ of habeas corpus is declined because the applicant is lawfully detained pursuant to valid convictions and sentence and habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure to challenge those convictions under s14 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 910
- Parties
- Applicant: Carl David George Butcher; Respondent: District Court of New Zealand
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 April 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application / Determination on Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention, Conviction, Sentence, Allegations of Misconduct, Amendment of Particulars
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Carl David George Butcher
Applicant
District Court of New Zealand
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application / Determination on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether habeas corpus is the appropriate procedure to challenge the lawfulness of detention arising from conviction and sentence
- 2 Whether the High Court may call into question a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction under s14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
- 3 Allegations of fabricated complaints, fraud, deceit and conspiracy by counsel, prosecution and court officers
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a writ of habeas corpus is declined because the applicant is lawfully detained pursuant to valid convictions and sentence and habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure to challenge those convictions under s14 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for a writ of habeas corpus dismissed
- No writ issued
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BUTCHER v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 910 [29 April 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-728[2019] NZHC 910BETWEEN CARL DAVID GEORGE BUTCHERApplicantAND DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALANDRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Self-represented ApplicantD J Perkins for RespondentJudgment: 29 April 2019JUDGMENT OF PETERS JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 29 April 2019 at 1 pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: ...................................Solicitors: Crown Law Office, WellingtonCopy for: Applicant[1] Mr Butcher applies for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He is a servingprisoner at the Auckland South Corrections Facility. He was sentenced to three yearsand three months' imprisonment by Judge Field in the District Court at Auckland on16 January 2018.1 That sentence relates to sixteen convictions, entered following ajury trial, for:(a) one charge of male assaults female;(b) eleven charges of assault on a child; and(c) four charges of assault with a weapon.[2] The application is based on Mr Butcher's claims of innocence. He asserts thatthe complaints against him were fabricated. Mr Butcher further alleges fraud, deceit,and conspiracy on the part of his trial counsel, the prosecution, and judicial and courtofficers. Mr Butcher also takes issue with the way the Crown amended the particularsof one of the charges on which he was convicted.[3] Section 14(1A) Habeas Corpus Act 2001 governs Mr Butcher's application andprovides:14 Determination of applications(1A) the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ,without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of thedetention of the detained person is lawful, if (a) (b) an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is notthe appropriate procedure for considering the allegationsmade by the applicant.[4] Section 14(2) further provides that:(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 –1 R v Butcher (Notes of Judge CJ Field on Sentencing) [2018] NZDC 521.(a) a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction[5] I decline Mr Butcher's application. He is lawfully detained given hisconvictions and sentence. No more needs to be said.[6] I dismiss the application accordingly.Peters J