SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1054 [14 May 2019]

SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1054[14 May 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWHANGAREI REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE[2019] NZHC 1054IN THE MATTER of review of a Registrar's decision in theHabeas Corpus hearing of S-I-R-Crown:1953150853, in bodyBETWEEN GEOFFREY SMITHApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: (On the papers)Judgment: 14 May 2019JUDGMENT OF BREWER J[1] The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) continues the currency of one of thefundamental instruments under our constitution for safeguarding individual liberty.Applications for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of a person'sdetention must be given urgency because of the primacy of the right not to be illegallydetained.[2] Unfortunately, applications for writs of habeas corpus are made mostly bypeople who manifestly are not illegally detained, even under the expansive definitionof "detention" (which includes every form of restraint of liberty of the person).[3] Mr Geoffrey Smith is a prison inmate. On 7 May 2018, his application for awrit of habeas corpus was rejected by Toogood J.1[4] On 18 May 2018, Mr Smith tried again. Justice Cooke considered the newapplication to be essentially the same as the application dismissed by Toogood J.Justice Cooke refused to allow the application to proceed pursuant to s 15(1) of theAct which provides the determination of an application is final and no furtherapplication can be made by any person on grounds requiring a re-examination by theCourt of substantially the same questions as those considered by the Court when theearlier application was refused.[5] Earlier this year, Mr Smith attempted to file unintelligible documents whichreferred to the Habeas Corpus Act. On 21 March 2019, Lang J directed the Registrarnot to accept the documents for filing.[6] Nothing daunted, Mr Smith has made two further attempts to gain a habeascorpus hearing. The first attempt was on 3 May 2019 and rejected for filing by theregistry which relied on a direction in Toogood J's judgment to the effect no furtherapplication for habeas corpus would be accepted for filing without the leave of a Judgeof the Court.[7] On 13 May 2019, Mr Smith attempted to file again the same document, thistime with an accompanying document submitting the registry failed to follow dueprocess. In it Mr Smith submits Toogood J's restriction on filing further applicationshas expired because he is now held under a new warrant of detention and so has afurther right to question the validity of the warrant of detention. Mr Smith is correctthat Toogood J's restriction no longer applies.[8] The registry has referred Mr Smith's "application" to me for a direction as towhether it should be accepted for filing as an application for habeas corpus.[9] I have examined the document Mr Smith wishes the registry to receive.Although it makes reference to habeas corpus, it is not an application for a writ of1 Smith v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 980.habeas corpus. First, it is not an originating application as required by s 7(1) of theAct. In appropriate cases that would not matter, but the body of the document says:2. This is not a challenge to the legality of the detention of a legalperson/company entity.[10] Second, there is, as far as I can see, no application for any relief from the Courtat all. The only paragraph which hints at a dispute is:3. Judge Cooper has ruled identification, contract between the living andthe person, contract between the living and the Court to exercise itsjurisdiction are required and have not been produced.[11] I am satisfied the "application" produced for filing by Mr Smith should not beaccepted for filing because it is unintelligible and does not comply with any of theHigh Court Rules for the filing of documents.[12] Even if the document did contain something recognisable as an application forhabeas corpus, the issue (if it can be said to be such) relating to Judge Cooper in thepassage I have just quoted would not be an issue for which habeas corpus is theappropriate procedure.2[13] Finally, this is not a case where due procedure should be put aside inrecognition of the constitutional purpose of habeas corpus. Mr Smith's documents aregibberish. To accept them and somehow act on them would be an abuse of the processof the Court.[14] I direct the registry not to accept the documents for filing.________________________________Brewer J2 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A).