HYSLOP v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 2711
The court refused the writ because it was not satisfied that the matters raised by the applicant undermined the lawfulness of the warrant to detain produced by the respondent.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 2711
- Parties
- Applicant: Glen Michael Hyslop; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 October 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus Application / Oral Hearing and Decision (writ Refused)
- Outcome
- Application for writ of habeas corpus refused
- Legal Topics
- Lawfulness of Detention, Validity of Warrant to Detain, Procedure for Habeas Corpus
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Glen Michael Hyslop
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus Application / Oral Hearing and Decision (writ Refused)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether grounds exist to issue a writ of habeas corpus
- 2 Whether the warrant to detain is unlawful or invalid
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused the writ because it was not satisfied that the matters raised by the applicant undermined the lawfulness of the warrant to detain produced by the respondent.
Court Disposition
Application for writ of habeas corpus refused
Orders
- Writ of habeas corpus refused
- Written decision setting out reasons to follow
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HYSLOP v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 2711 [11October 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2021-409-000456[2021] NZHC 2711UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a Writ of HabeasCorpusBETWEEN GLEN MICHAEL HYSLOPApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 11 October 2021Appearances: Applicant in person (By VMR)C J Boshier for RespondentJudgment: 11 October 2021JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J[1] I have heard your submissions. I am not going to give a full decision now, butI advise that I am not going to issue a writ of habeas corpus. I am not satisfied thatany of the matters which you raised undermine the lawfulness of the warrant to detainwhich Ms Boshier has produced.[2] A written decision which sets out my reasons will follow, probably later today.Solicitors:Raymond Donnelly & Co., ChristchurchCopy To:Mr Hyslop