MISIUK V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 105/2010
Because at the time the writ could issue the applicant was validly detained by subsequent District Court warrants, the detention was not unlawful and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 105/2010
- Parties
- Applicant: Pawel Marian Misiuk; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 16 November 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Habeas Corpus; Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Habeas Corpus, Bail Revocation, Warrant Issuance, Detention Law
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pawel Marian Misiuk
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus; Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether detention was unlawful at the time a writ of habeas corpus could issue
- 2 Whether the High Court's failure to issue a warrant under s 44(1) Bail Act 2000 tainted the detention
- 3 Whether subsequent District Court warrants cured any initial procedural defect
Ratio Decidendi
Because at the time the writ could issue the applicant was validly detained by subsequent District Court warrants, the detention was not unlawful and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MISIUK V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 105/2010 16 November 2010IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 105/2010 [2010] NZSC 140BETWEEN PAWEL MARIAN MISIUK Applicant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Court: Elias CJ, Tipping and McGrath JJ Counsel: Appellant in Person J C Pike for Crown Judgment: 16 November 2010JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed. REASONS[1] This application for habeas corpus is principally based on the failure of the High Court to issue a warrant to detain the applicant under s 44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 after Winkelmann J revoked his bail (in his presence). The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the deficiency had been overtaken by successive subsequent warrants issued by the District Court. It rejected arguments that the whole process was tainted. The Court declined to go into the effect of the original error concluding that it had to address the lawfulness of detention at the time of the Court's hearing. [2] The Court of Appeal's approach, which focused on the time that the application was heard, was correct. The writ can only issue if, at the time of its issue, the detention is unlawful. We are satisfied that at that time the applicant wasvalidly detained. Although there are other complaints by the applicant concerning the process, we are satisfied that none of them alters the validity of his detention. [3] The application for leave to appeal is refused as the appeal has no prospect of success.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington