SMITH v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2380

SMITH v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2380 [11 January 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV 2018-419-0280[2018] NZHC 2380UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and relatedlegislationIN THE MATTER OF an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN GEOFFREY MARTIN SMITHApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 10 September 2018Appearances: Mr Smith, applicant in personC H Macklin and C H R Harvey for the respondentJudgment: 11 September 2018JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE JThis judgment is delivered by me on 11 September 2018 at 11.00 ampursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules......................................................Registrar / Deputy RegistrarSolicitors:Gordon Pilditch, RotoruaAnd to:The Applicant[1] Mr Smith is detained at the Spring Hill Corrections Facility on a warrant ofcommitment dated 1 June 2018, in the wake of his conviction and sentencing that dayfor earlier admitted drug offending.[2] By application dated 3 September 2016, Mr Smith challenges the legality ofhis detention. The application follows his comparable pre-sentencing application,dismissed as meritless by Justice Toogood.1[3] Section 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 provides:Subject to the rights of appeal conferred by section 16 of this Act and tosections 68 to 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the determination of anapplication is final and no further application can be made by any person eitherto the same or to a different Judge on grounds requiring a re-examination bythe court of substantially the same questions as those considered by the courtwhen the earlier application was refused.[4] Mr Smith's present application is in large part identical to that considered byJustice Toogood in refusing the earlier application. Its only distinction is in extension(not expansion) of the grounds upon which the earlier application was made, butwithout any advance on the "nonsensical gibberish" Justice Toogood found made theapplication an abuse of process.[5] The present application would require me to re-examine substantially the samequestions as those considered by Justice Toogood. Mr Smith is not entitled to makehis present application, which was finally determined by Justice Toogood.[6] I therefore also dismiss Ms Smith's present application.—Jagose J1 Smith v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 980.