PAUL KENNETH HANNING V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV 2010-485-1965

PAUL KENNETH HANNING V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC WN CIV 2010-485-1965 12 October 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2010-485-1965UNDER the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 BETWEEN PAUL KENNETH HANNING Applicant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 12 October 2010 Counsel: P K Hanning (In person) Applicant V Casey for Respondent Judgment: 12 October 2010ORAL JUDGMENT OF MILLER J[1] Mr Hanning has moved for a writ of habeas corpus. He is a serving prisoner having been sentenced on 13 May 1988 to life imprisonment for murder. [2] In his written application Mr Hanning invoked two grounds. He first said that he was 17 when the offence occurred, therefore a minor. He invoked international instruments for the proposition that life imprisonment without possibility of parole cannot be imposed on minors. I observe that the possibility of parole has not been denied him; indeed he has twice been released on parole (in 2000 and 2002) only to be recalled most recently on 16 July 2004. Second, he said that when remanded in custody before trial he was for nine months held in conditions that required he associate with adult offenders.[3] Under s 14 of the Habeas Corpus Act the Judge must inquire into the facts but I may not call into question a conviction imposed or a sentence passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction.1 To the extent that it challenged the sentence Mr Hanning's application was improper. [4] As the Court of Appeal held in Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison, habeas corpus is normally confined to matters capable of sensible summary determination.2 Seldom is it the right process for administrative law challenges upstream of an apparently regular warrant. His challenge to the conditions of his detention appear to fall into that category. And as I have explained to him today, the Crimes Act and the Bail Act together expressly contemplate that a 17-year old may not only be convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment but also held in custody pending trial. [5] In this case the warrant is regular in form, and it is consistent with the conviction and sentence imposed. That being so, this is not a proper case for habeas corpus. To his credit, Mr Hanning acknowledged that when he appeared before me today, explaining that he had now read the papers filed for the respondent and that he had misunderstood the legal position. I express no criticism of him for bringing the application for habeas corpus. Regrettably, I am not able to respond to his request for advice as to how better to advance his case, because the grounds relied upon do not appear to afford him any basis for challenging his sentence. [6] The application for habeas corpus is dismissed. Miller JSolicitors:Crown Law, Wellington for Respondent1 T v Regional Intellectual Care Agency [2007] NZCA 208, [2007] NZAR 643 at [7]-12].2 Bennett v Superintendent, Rimutaka Prison [2002] 1 NZLR 616 at [62].