BILLINGHAM v POLICE [2019] NZHC 133
The application was struck out because the applicant was not detained within the meaning of the Act (the bail condition bound the husband not the applicant), the High Court cannot use the Act to question a bail order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeding would be an abuse of process outside the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZHC 133
- Parties
- Applicant: Maureen Billingham; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Application Filed and Struck Out (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Application struck out.
- Legal Topics
- Detention, Bail Conditions, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Maureen Billingham
Applicant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Application Filed and Struck Out (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is 'detained' within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
- 2 Whether a habeas corpus application can challenge a bail order granted by a court of competent jurisdiction
- 3 Whether the application falls within the purposes of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 or is an abuse of process
Ratio Decidendi
The application was struck out because the applicant was not detained within the meaning of the Act (the bail condition bound the husband not the applicant), the High Court cannot use the Act to question a bail order of a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeding would be an abuse of process outside the purposes of the Act.
Court Disposition
Application struck out.
Orders
- Application struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
BILLINGHAM v POLICE [2019] NZHC 133 [12 February 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2019-404-181[2019] NZHC 133UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001IN THE MATTER of an application for a writ of Habeas CorpusBETWEEN MAUREEN BILLINGHAMApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 12 February 2019 (on the papers)Judgment: 12 February 2019JUDGMENT OF BREWER JSolicitors:Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent[1] On 11 February 2019, Mrs Billingham filed an application for a writ of habeascorpus.[2] The basis of the application is that Mrs Billingham's husband has been chargedwith an offence against her and one of the conditions of his bail terms is thatMr Billingham is: not to associate or have contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim,Maureen Billingham.[3] Mrs Billingham, in her application and associated affidavit, maintains that thisbail condition restricts her to such an extent that she is within the definition of"detention" in the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. That definition is:Detention includes every form of restraint of liberty of the person.[4] Mrs Billingham alleges that the Judge who, in granting bail, imposed thecondition on Mr Billingham was misinformed or was not informed about her view ofthe matter.[5] There are three reasons why the application must be struck out:(a) Mrs Billingham is not detained. There is no form of restraint of theliberty of her person. The bail condition binds Mr Billingham and notMrs Billingham. Mrs Billingham is free to associate withMr Billingham if she wishes to. However, if Mr Billingham does so inbreach of the bail condition then there will be consequences forMr Billingham.(b) There is no question that Mr Billingham is subject to a grant of bail bya Court of competent jurisdiction. A Judge is not entitled, pursuant tothe Habeas Corpus Act 2001, to call into question a ruling as to bail bya Court of competent jurisdiction.11 Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2).(c) The relevant purposes of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 are:2(a) to reaffirm the historic and constitutional purpose of the writof habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individualliberty:(b) to make better provision for restoring the liberty of personsunlawfully detained by establishing an effective procedure forapplications to the High Court for the issue of a writ of habeascorpus, and the expeditious determination of thoseapplications:This application does not fall within these purposes. To proceed withit would be an abuse of the process of the Court.Decision[6] The application is struck out.________________________________Brewer J2 Section 5.