MISIUK V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 88/2011

MISIUK V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 88/2011

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the habeas corpus application had no prospect of success as the applicant is lawfully detained under a warrant of committal issued in respect of an ongoing sentence; the Court of Appeal did not err and the applicant's procedural complaints do not justify...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SC 88/2011
Parties
Applicant: Pawel Marian Misiuk; Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
10 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Habeas Corpus; Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Warrant of Committal, Leave to Appeal, Costs
Criminal Procedure Prison Law Habeas Corpus Appellate Procedure Warrant of Committal Leave to Appeal Costs

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pawel Marian Misiuk

Applicant

Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Habeas Corpus; Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed

  1. 1 Whether the habeas corpus application had any prospect of success given lawful detention under a warrant of committal
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the habeas corpus application had no prospect of success as the applicant is lawfully detained under a warrant of committal issued in respect of an ongoing sentence; the Court of Appeal did not err and the applicant's procedural complaints do not justify further appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
  • Costs reserved.