COOKE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 244

COOKE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 244 [21 February2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-220[2020] NZHC 244UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN JOSHUA-JAMES LACELLES COOKEApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 21 February 2020Appearances: Applicant on own behalfL Lim for the RespondentJudgment: 21 February 2020ORAL JUDGMENT OF GORDON JSolicitors: Crown Solicitor, AucklandCopy To: The Applicant[1] Joshua-James Cooke has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus dated17 February 2020 but filed on 19 February 2020. The application was referred to mein my capacity as Duty Judge. I directed it should be served on the Crown. I also setthe application down for hearing today, given the requirements of s 9(3) of the HabeasCorpus Act 2001 (the Act).[2] Mr Cooke's application states that:I wish to challenge my detention on my current charges as I believe I havebeen unlawfully detained.I am currently being detained at Mt Eden Correctional Facility on a falsebreach of bail and a number of offences that are a result of a clearly illicitsearch.[3] Mr Cooke appears today by audio visual link from Mt Eden CorrectionalFacility in support of his application.[4] Ms Lim appears on behalf of the respondent, the Chief Executive of theDepartment of Correction, who opposes the application.[5] A defendant (or respondent) in a habeas corpus application is required toestablish that the detention of the detained person is lawful.1 Despite this requirement,the Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ without requiring adefendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the Courtis satisfied that an application for the writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriateprocedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.2[6] One of Mr Cooke's challenges appears to be that a number of the offences inrespect of which he has been held in custody arise from what he describes as a clearlyillicit search. If he does wish to challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained in asearch or the correctness of a Court decision, then the habeas corpus procedure is notthe appropriate procedure for considering his allegations. His remedies lie in thecriminal proceedings.1 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).2 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1A)(b).[7] Accordingly, in relation to that part of Mr Cooke's application, I do notconsider the Chief Executive is required to establish that Mr Cooke's detention islawful.[8] The second aspect of Mr Cooke's application relates to his allegation that he isbeing detained on a false breach of bail. In other words, this appears to be a challengeto a decision to decline him bail. The Act provides that an inquiry under s 14 does notentitle "a Judge to call into question a ruling as to bail by a Court of competentjurisdiction". In other words, if Mr Cooke has been declined bail, his remedies lie inpursuing a bail appeal or making a fresh bail application. This Court therefore doesnot have jurisdiction to inquire into the second aspect of Mr Cooke's application.[9] Mr Cooke addressed the Court orally in support of his application. In his oralsubmissions he complained about the lack of facilities to enable him to prepare for hiscourt proceedings (his Auckland counsel having resigned) and also what he perceivesas an inadequate response to his medical needs. Neither supports an application for awrit of habeas corpus.[10] In any event I am satisfied that Mr Cooke is detained lawfully pursuant towarrants of commitment which are annexed to Ms Lim's submissions. Mr Cooke'sdetention is presently authorised by:(a) A warrant to detain Mr Cooke signed by Judge Orchard dated5 February 2020. The warrant authorises Mr Cooke's detention until30 March 2020 in respect of three charges, for which convictions arerecorded;(b) A second warrant to detain Mr Cooke signed by Judge Orchard alsodated 5 February 2020. The warrant authorises Mr Cooke's detentionuntil 10 March 2020 in respect of nine charges; and(c) A third warrant to detain Mr Cooke signed by Judge Collins dated19 February 2020. The warrant authorises Mr Cooke's detention until28 February 2020 in respect of 11 charges (three of which are the samecharges as in the first warrant referred to above).[11] These warrants establish the factual and legal basis for Mr Cooke's detention.[12] The application for habeas corpus is refused.___________________________________Gordon J