SESTAN V THE DIRECTOR OF AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 94/2006
Because the applicant had been released into the community subject to a Community Treatment Order there was no continuing detention and consequently no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the substantive questions should, if pursued, be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SESTAN V THE DIRECTOR OF AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 94/2006
- Parties
- Applicant: Josko Sestan; Respondent: Director of Area Mental Health Services Waitemata District Health Board
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Detention Under Mental Health Act, Community Treatment Order, Continuing Detention, Leave to Appeal, Intervention by Attorney‑general
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Josko Sestan
Applicant
Director of Area Mental Health Services Waitemata District Health Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Leave Application Heard and Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a continuing detention permitting issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
- 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to determine expanded questions raised in lower courts
- 3 Whether the Attorney‑General should be permitted to intervene
Ratio Decidendi
Because the applicant had been released into the community subject to a Community Treatment Order there was no continuing detention and consequently no basis for issuing a writ of habeas corpus; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the substantive questions should, if pursued, be addressed by judicial review.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Application by the Attorney‑General to intervene lapses.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
SESTAN V THE DIRECTOR OF AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD SC 94/2006 14 February 2007IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 94/2006 [2007] NZSC 5BETWEEN JOSKO SESTAN Applicant AND THE DIRECTOR OF AREA MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES WAITEMATA DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Respondent Hearing: 14 February 2007 Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ Counsel: T Ellis and A Rossiter for Applicant M R Heron and D Marshall for Respondent Judgment: 14 February 2007 Reasons: 15 February 2007JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal from the High Court's refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus in relation to his detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Since the filing of the application in this Court, however, the applicant has been released into the community subject to a Community Treatment Order. His counsel, Mr Ellis, did not seek to advance any argument that in these circumstances there can be said to be a continuing detention. Accordingly, there is now no basis upon which a writ of habeas corpus could be issued.[2] The questions which the applicant wished to raise, having expanded considerably in the Court of Appeal and again in the present application to this Court, are more appropriately addressed by way of a judicial review proceeding which counsel has indicated as the likely course. [3] We record that the Solicitor-General, Mr Collins QC, had given notice of application by the Attorney-General for leave to intervene if we were minded to grant the leave application and was in Court for that purpose, but, as leave has not been granted, that application lapses.Solicitors: T Ellis, Wellington, for Applicant Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent