JOHN FREDERICK ERICSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZSC 95
Leave to appeal dismissed because the sentencing judge had signed the warrant authorising detention, the absence of the original in the institution did not invalidate the detention, and the case raised no issue of general or public importance nor risk of serious miscarriage of justice.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZSC 95
- Parties
- Applicant: John Frederick Ericson; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 June 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus / Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Habeas Corpus, Warrant of Commitment, Validity of Detention, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Frederick Ericson
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus / Criminal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the warrant of commitment under which the applicant is detained is valid when a photocopy is held instead of the original
- 2 Whether a warrant signed by the sentencing judge is sufficient to authorise detention
- 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court in the absence of an issue of public or general importance or a risk of serious miscarriage of justice
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal dismissed because the sentencing judge had signed the warrant authorising detention, the absence of the original in the institution did not invalidate the detention, and the case raised no issue of general or public importance nor risk of serious miscarriage of justice.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
JOHN FREDERICK ERICSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZSC 95 [29 June 2015]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 55/2015[2015] NZSC 95BETWEEN JOHN FREDERICK ERICSONApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJCounsel: Applicant in personK M Muller for RespondentJudgment: 29 June 2015JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant, Mr Ericson, is serving a sentence of life imprisonment following his conviction on a charge of murder. He seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal1 upholding a decision of Nation J in the High Court dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus.2 The essential ground of the leave application is that Mr Ericson considers that he is being held in prison under an invalid warrant of commitment. Mr Ericson alleges that the warrant held by the prison authorities is a photocopy rather than the original.[2] The Court of Appeal held that there was no doubt that the High Court Judge who had sentenced Mr Ericson, Panckhurst J, had signed the necessary warrant of1 Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2015] NZCA 199 [Ericson (CA)].2 Ericson v Superintendent of Christchurch Men's Prison [2015] NZHC 756.commitment. That was sufficient to authorise Mr Ericson's detention.3 Moreover, although it was not necessary that the penal institution concerned hold the original of the warrant, the Court was satisfied that it did in fact hold the original warrant.4[3] We are not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice that the Court hear and determine this appeal. It raises no issue of general or public importance, nor is there any risk of a serious miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent3 Ericson (CA), above n 1, at [9]–[14].4 At [15].