EADEN v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2023] NZHC 2451

EADEN v DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH [2023] NZHC 2451 [1 September 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECRI-2023-409-000166[2023] NZHC 2451UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application by Emma Lesley EadenBETWEEN EMMA LESLEY EADENApplicantAND DISTRICT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCHRespondentHearing: On the papersCounsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 1 September 2023JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN JBackground[1] Late On the afternoon of Thursday, 31 August 2023 the Registry received adocument which was interpreted as an application for the issue of a writ of habeascorpus. The matter was referred to me as Duty Judge.[2] The application was not in the form of an originating application under Part 19of the High Court Rules 2016 ("HCR"). It consisted of a photocopy of a draft writ ofhabeas corpus taken from the Schedule to the Habeas Corpus Act 2021 (the Act). Onthat document had been written a number of marginal notes.[3] Also received at the same time was what was described as a "notice of appeal".Again, a photocopied draft form had been used with handwritten annotations.[4] Although that document said that attached to it as Exhibit A was a copy ofa decision made on 23 August 2023 by an unnamed District Court Judge torevoke/refuse bail, no such decision was attached.[5] Attached as Exhibit B to the document was a photocopy of ss 23, 24, 25 and26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, with various handwritten marginalnotes and felt pen highlighting.[6] From the information in that document, it seems that the applicant wishes toappeal a decision of the District Court refusing to grant her bail.[7] The relief sought by the applicant in that document was her immediatedischarge from custody and a remand at large to appear at court on 26 September 2023for a case review hearing.[8] A further document received was a printed form of notice of application forleave to appeal which had been filled in, in handwriting. This document also relatedto the decision to refuse/revoke bail.[9] As the applicant had not provided a copy of the bail decision referred to, norindicated the name of the Judge involved, I requested the Registry to check with theDistrict Court. That revealed that on 24 August 2023 Judge M J Duggan in the DistrictCourt at Christchurch had declined an application by the applicant for bail andremanded her in custody with the case to be called again on 14 September 20234 at11.45 am.11 Police v Eaden [2023] NZDC 18063.Habeas Corpus applications[10] The common law writ of habeas corpus is of ancient origin but, inNew Zealand, the procedures relating to such applications are now governed by theAct.[11] The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to secure the liberty of a person whohas been unlawfully or unjustifiably detained. It is most commonly applied for in thecontext of detentions in prison.2 The appropriate respondent to be named in anapplication for habeas corpus is the superintendent of the prison where the applicantis being detained. In this case, this should have been the superintendent ofChristchurch Women's Prison.Analysis[12] None of the procedural requirements in the Act have been complied with inthis case. It is clear that what the applicant really wants to do is to challenge theDistrict Court decision refusing to grant her bail.[13] Section 14(1A)(b) of the Act provides that the High Court may refuse anapplication for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, without requiring the defendant toestablish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the Court is satisfiedthat an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriateprocedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.[14] Where the Court is satisfied that s 14(1A) applies, the Court may reject theapplication on the papers.3 Decisions made on the papers should be given by way offormal judgment rather than a minute.4Outcome[15] I am satisfied that an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is notthe appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made the applicant. The2 Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility [2012] NZSC 121.3 Grant v Minister of Justice [2021] NZHC 1270.4 Ericson v Department of Corrections [2014] NZCA 118, [2014] NZAR 540 at [9].documents filed by the applicant are to be treated as if they were an appeal against thebail decision of Judge Duggan on 24 August 2023.[16] The application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is therefore dismissed.Churchman J