WHICHMAN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 1296
Because the applicant's detention follows a valid conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge either the conviction or the conditions of detention; challenges to solitary confinement and related conditions should be pursued by judicial review, and therefore the habeas corpus...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 1296
- Parties
- Applicant: George Whichman; Defendant: Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 June 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application / High Court Judgment (application Dismissed)
- Outcome
- Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Habeas Corpus, Solitary Confinement, Lawful Detention, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
George Whichman
Applicant
Department of Corrections
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application / High Court Judgment (application Dismissed)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether habeas corpus is available to challenge the lawfulness of detention of a convicted prisoner
- 2 Whether conditions of solitary confinement amount to unlawful detention
- 3 Appropriate procedural remedy for challenging conditions of detention (habeas corpus v judicial review)
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant's detention follows a valid conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge either the conviction or the conditions of detention; challenges to solitary confinement and related conditions should be pursued by judicial review, and therefore the habeas corpus application must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed.
Orders
- Application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WHICHMAN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 1296 [1 June 2018]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2018-404-1029[2018] NZHC 1296BETWEEN GEORGE WHICHMANApplicantAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSDefendantHearing: 1 June 2018Counsel: Appellant in personM Mortimer for DefendantJudgment: 1 June 2018JUDGMENT OF WHATA JThis judgment was delivered by me on 1 June 2018 at 4.30 pm,pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate: .Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland[1] I have before me a purported application for habeas corpus. The central claimmade is that Mr Whichman has been unlawfully detained in solitary confinement for18 hours a day and for lengthy periods and otherwise mistreated while serving asentence. In support of his application, he refers to the New Zealand Bill of RightsAct and, in particular, ss22, 23(5), 17 – 19 and 10. He also refers to arts 9, 18 and 19of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The majority of thoseprovisions deplore unlawful and/or arbitrary detention.[2] The present application follows from an application made on 8 March 2018.As happened in that case, the application for a writ of habeas corpus has to bedismissed.1 Mr Whichman was convicted and sentenced in the District Court onfirearms charges and domestic violence charges and is presently serving that sentence.While there is a conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is not available to challengethe imprisonment.2 Previous authorities suggest judicial review is a more appropriateway to challenge solitary confinement than a writ of habeas corpus. As the Court ofAppeal in Ericson v Department of Corrections stated:3The writ is not appropriate for challenging the lawfulness of a conviction orthe conditions under which an inmate sentenced to imprisonment is detained.[3] Accordingly, the application is dismissed.1 Whichman v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2018] NZHC 380.2 Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [2012] NZSC 16.3 Ericson v Department of Corrections [2014] NZCA 118, [2014] NZAR 540 at [4].