PARKER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 316 [15 July 2022]

PARKER v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 316[15 July 2022]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA235/2022[2022] NZCA 316BETWEEN DAVID RICHARD PARKERAppellantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 9 June 2022Court: Katz, Thomas and Woolford JJCounsel: Appellant in personA W Britton for RespondentJudgment: 15 July 2022 at 9:30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Woolford J)[1] David Richard Parker appeals against a decision of Palmer J dated10 May 2022 dismissing his application under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001challenging the legality of his detention.1 Mr Parker is unrepresented. He appearedby way of audio visual link from Rimutaka Prison where he is currently detained.1 Parker v Department of Corrections [2022] NZHC 987.Initial difficulty for Mr Parker[2] The initial difficulty for Mr Parker is that he appears to be in lawful custodypursuant to a warrant to detain him issued by Judge RE Neave in the ChristchurchDistrict Court on 22 April 2022. The warrant directs the Manager of Rimutaka Prisonto detain Mr Parker and bring him back to the Wellington District Court on25 July 2022 to answer further to three specified criminal charges.[3] Mr Parker also appears to acknowledge the legality of his detention. In hisNotice of Application for Leave to Appeal to this Court dated 16 May 2022, apparentlydrafted by his father, Mr Parker states:The applicant was aware that the warrant for detention held by the Departmentof Corrections was legal and therefore not an avenue for a Writ of HabeasCorpus.[4] In what appears to be his own handwriting, Mr Parker has written on the Leaveto Appeal form:This is the general gist of the "Apeal", Dad didn't understand some of it; buthe did his best; [therefore] It is not the whole Act and Acts; Can('t) wait tillwe get to the whole "truth"; and nothing but the truth; Your sincerely DavidRichard Parker 19 May 2022Mr Parker's arguments[5] The Department of Corrections has provided a copy of the warrant to detainMr Parker to the Court. Mr Parker's argument does not challenge the existence andterms of the warrant, however. In wide-ranging and discursive submissions, Mr Parkermakes a number of complaints about his current predicament.[6] In a seven-page handwritten submission timed and dated 11.05 pm on 1 June,Mr Parker complains of his treatment in prison, in particular, misconduct chargeswhich were heard or are to be heard by a Visiting Justice and his placement in aManagement Unit with no access to legal documents or counsel. He also complainsof the inadequacy of bedding, clothing and food and a lack of books to read.[7] Mr Parker also seeks disclosure of unspecified documentation held byCorrections, Police, the Independent Police Conduct Authority and New ZealandSecurity Intelligence Service, as well as his complete medical records.[8] He queries why the respondent in this proceeding was changed from NewZealand Police or Crown to Corrections.[9] Mr Parker criticises a Minute issued by this Court dated 20 May 2022 andseeks to have the matter investigated and referred to the "Treaty of WaitangiCommission", the "Commission of Bill of Right" and the "Nation body in charge ofthe Prevention of Torture" as stipulated by the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.[10] Mr Parker submits that his appeal should be heard by a full panel of SupremeCourt Judges. He complains about being unable to contact the Ombudsman and arange of other issues. He says he has been kidnapped so many times and police allowit to happen.[11] Then in a one-page handwritten submission dated 7 June, Mr Parker says thathe has been proved innocent of most of his charges or has pleaded guilty under duress.He also annexes copies of incident information reports, misconduct reports, prisonermisconduct acknowledgement forms, a decision of a Visiting Justice and emails asexamples of "Black Kangaroo Process".Discussion[12] In Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison, this Court held that once aprison superintendent or other official produces a committal warrant or otherauthorisation, the applicant for a writ of habeas corpus must show why the warrantsare not sufficient answer to his application:2[70] In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named asrespondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation it wouldthen be necessary for an applicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that thedocumentation did not in fact provide a lawful justification in the particularcircumstances.2 Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70].[13] The onus, therefore, shifts to Mr Parker to show why the warrant produced bythe Crown does not provide a lawful basis for his detention. The matters raised byMr Parker either singularly or in combination do not call into question the legality ofhis detention.[14] We are satisfied that the warrant to detain produced by the Crown demonstratesa lawful basis for Mr Parker's detention. Mr Parker has not advanced any argumentsthat might justify a conclusion that his detention is unlawful. The matters raised byhim should be addressed through bail or trial processes or other avenues.Result[15] The appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent