CASTLE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 517 [21 March 2022]

CASTLE v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 517[21 March 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAKIRIKIRIROA ROHECIV-2022-419-000060[2022] NZHC 517UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of habeas corpusBETWEEN MATTHEW CASTLEApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentHearing: 18 March 2022Appearances: Applicant in personJ Hamilton for the RespondentJudgment: 21 March 2022JUDGMENT OF GORDON JThis judgment is delivered by me on 21 March 2022 at 2:00pmpursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules......................................................Registrar / Deputy RegistrarSolicitors: Crown Solicitor, HamiltonCopy to:The Applicant[1] The applicant, Matthew Castle, filed a document dated 15 March 20221purporting to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The document was filedon 17 March 2022 together with a further document dated 16 March 2022.[2] I directed the Registry to forward a copy to the Crown Solicitor. I set the matterdown for hearing on 18 March 2022 given the requirements of the Habeas Corpus Act2001 (the Act).2 At the end of the hearing I refused the application for habeas corpus.This judgment contains the background and my reasons.[3] The grounds of the application as contained in the 15 March 2022 documentare not easy to discern. While the document is headed "Habeas Corpus" it assertsbreaches of two provisions of the Crimes Act 1961,3 and the Torture Act 1989,4 as wellas a breach of Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights1967. The remedy sought is that two police officers be stood down and it is said thattort damages may apply.[4] There is more clarity in the 16 March 2022 document. It alleges that Mr Castlewas "Believed to be sent to Springhill remand for refusing to sign a bail bond of anartificial persons". The document further says that "a Magistrate believed to be fromTauranga has sent Matthew to Springhill Remand without Matthews consent to beingthe Artificial Persons on the Charge Forms".[5] The remedy he seeks is that "Matthew shall be released" and "Magistrate shallbe stood down".Background[6] The background as appearing from the memorandum filed by Ms Hamilton,counsel for the respondent, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections(Chief Executive), and documents annexed to the memorandum, is that Mr Castle wascharged with three offences:1 It seems likely there is an error in the date as Mr Castle was not remanded in custody until 16March 2022.2 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 9.3 Section 98 (Dealing in slaves); and 240 (Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception).4 The Court assumes that it is the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.(a) contravening a protection order (between 24 December 2021 and 31January 2022);5(b) contravening a protection order (on 7 March 2022);6 and(c) refusing to supply identifying particulars to Police (on 15 March2022).7[7] The alleged offending arose in circumstances where Mr Castle was subject toa protection order issued by the Thames Family Court on 22 November 2021. Theprotection order was served by the Police on 24 November 2021. The Police Summaryof Facts alleges that Mr Castle has repeatedly breached the protection order.[8] On the charges alleging contravention of a protection order, the person chargedis not bailable as of right.8[9] Mr Castle's first appearance on the charges was on 16 March 2022 in theThames District Court. It is apparent from the bail decision of the CommunityMagistrate of that date, that Mr Castle was in fact granted bail and remanded to nextappear in the Thames District Court on 29 March 2022. Bail was subject to conditionsset out in the decision of the Community Magistrate.[10] However, in an addendum to the decision the Community Magistrate notes thatMr Castle refused to sign his bail bond and that he was to be remanded in custody until29 March 2022.[11] There is a copy of a Warrant of Detention dated 16 March 2022 signed by theCommunity Magistrate remanding Mr Castle in custody at Spring Hill CorrectionsFacility to be brought back before the Thames District Court on Tuesday 29 March2022 at 10 am.5 Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a).6 Family Violence Act, ss 90(b) and 112(1)(a).7 Policing Act 2008, s 32(4).8 Bail Act 2000, s 7.The hearing[12] Mr Castle appeared by VMR. He made oral submissions which did notilluminate his application.[13] Ms Hamilton appeared on behalf of the Chief Executive.Decision[14] The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to enable an applicant to challengethe validity of his or her detention in custody. If the respondent fails to establish thatthe detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matterof right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person fromdetention.9 A Judge dealing with an application must inquire in the matters of fact andlaw claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that inquiry to the correctionof jurisdictional errors.10 However, the Judge is not entitled to call into question aruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.11[15] Mr Castle's application faces the difficulty that it appears to be a challenge toa ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction. Such a decision may not becalled into question on a habeas corpus application. But in any event I am satisfiedthat the Warrant of Detention is valid on its face and the Chief Executive hasestablished that detention of Matthew Castle is lawful.Result[16] The application by Mr Castle for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is refused._____________________________Gordon J9 Habeas Corpus Act, s 14(1).10 Habeas Corpus Act, s 14(2).11 Habeas Corpus Act, s 14(2)(b).