EADEN v SUPERINTENDENT OF CHRISTCHURCH WOMEN’S PRISON [2023] NZHC 2651

EADEN v SUPERINTENDENT OF CHRISTCHURCH WOMEN'S PRISON [2023] NZHC 2651 [21September 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2023-409-513[2023] NZHC 2651BETWEEN EMMA LESLEY EADENApplicantAND SUPERINTENDENT OFCHRISTCHURCH WOMEN'S PRISONRespondentHearing: On the papersAppearances: Defendant in PersonJudgment: 21 September 2023JUDGMENT OF MANDER JThis judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2023 at 5 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .[1] Emma Eaden has today filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, dated12 September 2023, that has been referred to me as duty Judge.[2] This morning, Ms Eaden appeared before Dunningham J to argue her appealagainst a refusal to admit to her to bail on charges she faces in the District Court. Adecision on her appeal is currently reserved. The application for a writ of habeascorpus is simply a repetition of her argument regarding the merits of the bail decisionthat is the subject of the appeal.[3] On 1 September 2023, Churchman J dismissed an earlier application byMs Eaden for a writ of habeas corpus, which appears to relate to the same bail decisionby Judge Duggan in the Christchurch District Court and resulted in her beingremanded in custody. It was observed, at the time that application was dismissed, thatnotwithstanding non-compliance with procedural requirements of the Habeas CorpusAct (the Act), it was clear that what Ms Eaden was attempting to do was challenge theDistrict Court's decision to refuse her bail.[4] 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 allegationsmade by the applicant.[5] Section 15(1) provides:15 Finality of determinations(1) Subject to the rights of appeal conferred by section 16 of this Act andto sections 68 to 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the determinationof an application is final and no further application can be made byany person either to the same or to a different Judge on groundsrequiring a re-examination by the court of substantially the samequestions as those considered by the court when the earlier applicationwas refused.[6] Section 14(2) of the Act provides:(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—(b) a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.[7] Where the Court is satisfied that s 14(1A) applies, it may reject the applicationon the papers.1 The present application seeks to relitigate the question of bail that hasalready been the subject of argument as early as this morning on an appeal from theDistrict Court's bail decision.[8] Not only is it clear that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not theappropriate procedure for considering the merits of bail decisions, which reside at firstinstance with the District Court and thereafter in this Court by way of rights of appealthat Ms Eaden has exercised, but this Court is prohibited on an application for habeascorpus from calling into question a bail ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction.This is what Ms Eaden's application seeks to do.[9] Further, as noted, Churchman J has already made a ruling regarding an earlierapplication for habeas corpus by Ms Eaden regarding her custodial status in respect ofher current charges. It follows that s 15(1) of the Act applies. No further applicationcan be made requiring a re-examination of substantially the same question as thatpreviously put before this Court for its consideration on an earlier application.[10] Because ss 14(1A)(a) and (b) and 15(1) apply to Ms Eaden's habeas corpusapplication, it can be rejected on the papers without a hearing, and I do so.1 Grant v Ministry of Justice [2021] NZHC 1270.[11] The application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.