LAWRENCE SILVIA PETERS (also known as LAWRENCE RAHIPERE and/or Lawrence ) v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 2825

LAWRENCE SILVIA PETERS (also known as LAWRENCE RAHIPERE and/or Lawrence < living man >) vTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 2825 [31 October2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2022-404-2045[2022] NZHC 2825UNDER The Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER OF An application for a writ of Habeas CorpusBETWEEN LAWRENCE SILVIA PETERS (also knownas LAWRENCE RAHIPERE and/orLawrence < living man >)ApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentOn the papers: At AucklandAppearances: The Applicant in personH L Botha for the RespondentJudgment: 31 October 2022JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Habeas Corpus]This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2022 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 25 October 2022 the applicant Lawrence Silvia Peters (also known asLawrence Rahipere and/or Lawrence < living man>) applied for a writ of HabeasCorpus. There is no dispute that Mr Peters is currently remanded in custody anddespite being given an opportunity to do so has not provided any reasons forchallenging his detention.[2] From information provided by Ms Botha on behalf of the respondent it appearsMr Peters has been remanded in custody pursuant to a warrant to detain signed byJudge N R Webby on 19 October 2022 after his Judge alone trial on various offenceswas adjourned part heard. The warrant specifies Mr Peters is to remain in custodyuntil his trial resumes on 7 November 2022 albeit it appears he was granted acompassionate release on 27 October 2022 and was due to return to the Mount EdenCorrections facility at 10 am on 31 October 2022.[3] The warrant provides a conclusive answer to the application and in thecircumstances, there is no need for a hearing. As the Court of Appeal noted in Bennettv Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison:1We are aware that, in formal terms, the burden of proof rests on the applicantfor judicial review, whereas it is for the respondent to an application for habeascorpus to justify the detention. We are aware also that a writ of habeas corpusmust be issued if the respondent does not prove the lawfulness of the detention In practice, once a prison superintendent or other official named asrespondent produces a committal warrant or other authorisation – as therespondents have done in this case – it would then be necessary for anapplicant for habeas corpus to demonstrate that the documentation did not infact provide a lawful justification in the particular circumstances.[4] As Mr Peters has taken no issue with the warrant in this case, it thereforefollows that Mr Peters detention is lawful and, as a result, his application must be, andis, dismissed.1 Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70]._______________________________Powell J