TRANTER v EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2764 [24 October 2018]

TRANTER v EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2764[24 October 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV 2018-485-779[2018] NZHC 2764BETWEEN DAVID STANLEY TRANTERApplicantAND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OFDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentOn the papersJudgment: 24 October 2018JUDGMENT OF MALLON J[1] Mr Tranter is subject to a sentence of preventive detention following hisconvictions for sexual offending.1 An appeal against his conviction and sentence wasdismissed by the Court of Appeal.2 An application for leave to appeal to the SupremeCourt was dismissed.3 He is currently detained in Rimutaka prison. His detention ispursuant to a warrant dated 5 February 2016 signed by the High Court Judge whosentenced him.[2] On 23 October 2018 the High Court received a letter submitting an "enclosedApplication for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001". The enclosed applicationstates that the application is for "release on Bail Pending Hearing of Appeal". Thisapplication is supported by a detailed "Submission for Relief under the Habeas CorpusAct 2001". This document sets out Mr Tranter's belief that a serious miscarriage ofjustice has occurred and that his application for habeas corpus should be granted to1 R v Tranter [2016] NZHC 111 (Sentencing Remarks of Gendall J).2 Tranter v R [2017] NZCA 45.3 Tranter v R [2017] NZSC 187.allow his suffering to stop. The document sets out the reasons why he considers aserious miscarriage occurred.[3] Because the application purported to be for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act2001, the application was treated urgently by the registry and, as is the usualprocedure, the documents were provided to Crown Law for any submissions inresponse they might wish to make. Written submissions were received today. Thesesubmissions inform the Court of the background to Mr Tranter's application, namelythat he is detained pursuant to a valid warrant, he has made previous applications forhabeas corpus on substantially the same grounds, and that Mr Tranter's application isone for bail. For completeness, Crown Law should provide a copy of theirsubmissions to Mr Tranter if they have not already done so.[4] I have reviewed Mr Tranter's letter and supporting materials. In short, healleges there is evidence that shows a miscarriage occurred. He refers to: abuseallegations against him which were investigated and proven to be false; evidence thata complainant was in custody at the time the abuse was said to have occurred; evidenceabout the small size of the room where he was alleged to have raped a complainant;and allegations a complainant and some of the witnesses committed perjury.[5] Mr Tranter's application is substantially the same as was considered byNation J on 12 January 2016 and Nicholas Davidson J on 16 April 2018.4 As theysaid, on an application for habeas corpus a court will not enquire into a convictionentered by a court of competent jurisdiction.5 Moreover, no further application can bemade on grounds requiring a re-examination by the Court of substantially the samequestions as those considered by the Court when the earlier application was refused.6[6] If Mr Tranter wishes to seek leave to appeal his conviction on grounds ofmiscarriage of justice not already considered by the Court of Appeal, his leaveapplication would be to that Court. If he wishes to seek bail pending any such appeal,his application would be to the Court of Appeal or the Judge who presided at the trial4 Tranter v R [2018] NZHC 681 and R v Tranter HC Christchurch, CIV-2016-409-3, 12 January2016.5 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14.6 Section 15.in the High Court.7 He can pursue those courses if he wishes to do so. He cannotcontinue to seek to use the habeas corpus procedure for these purposes.[7] Mr Tranter's covering letter requested a hearing. He considered there couldnot be a fair hearing unless he was permitted to present his case and evidence at sucha hearing. However a hearing is not appropriate. His application is not one properlybrought under the Habeas Corpus Act and accordingly it is appropriately dealt with onthe papers.[8] His application for relief under the Habeas Corpus Act is dismissed.Mallon J7 Bail Act 2000, s 55.