HAWKINS & DAVIES v MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH [2021] NZHC 842

HAWKINS & DAVIES v MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH [2021] NZHC 842 [20 April 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAŌTAUTAHI ROHECIV-2021-409-000121[2021] NZHC 842BETWEEN PRISZILLIA HAWKINSApplicantAND MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTHRespondentAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OFBUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTProposed substituted respondentCIV-2021-409-000122BETWEEN GUY DAVIESApplicantAND MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTHRespondentAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OFBUSINESS, INNOVATION ANDEMPLOYMENTProposed substituted respondentHearing: On the papersJudgment: 20 April 2021JUDGMENT OF NATION J[1] On 7 April 2021, Mr Davies and Ms Hawkins attempted to file with the HighCourt at Christchurch documents in which they sought release from their detention inmanaged isolation by way of a writ of habeas corpus. That detention was said to bein accordance with COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2)2020 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Isolation and Quarantine) Order2020, orders made under the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.[2] The documents submitted were not in the form required, affidavits having notbeen sworn in a manner and before persons before whom affidavits have to be sworn.They were advised by email on 7 April 2021 that a Judge had noted the documentssubmitted were not in the form of an originating application as required by s 7(1) ofthe Habeas Corpus Act 2001. They were advised the affidavits must, as a minimum,be be accompanied by an application which outlines why the extension of detentionto which they were subject was unlawful, notwithstanding the provisions of therelevant legislative instruments (as set out above at [1]).[3] On 8 April 2021, both parties filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus.It was set down for hearing on 13 April 2021 at 2.15 pm.[4] On 9 April 2021, notices of opposition were filed on behalf of the ChiefExecutive, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.[5] On 9 April 2021, Ms Quinn, not a solicitor, purported to file on behalf of bothMs Hawkins and Mr Davies a one page document making assertions as to the illegalityof Ms Hawkins and Mr Davies' detention in managed isolation.[6] Crown Law, on behalf of Chief Executive, Ministry of Business, Innovationand Employment, filed detailed submissions on 11 April 2021 as to the lawfulness oftheir detention.[7] On 13 April 2021, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Chief Executive,Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment advising that Ms Hawkins and MrDavies were released from managed isolation at their respective hotels on 11 April2021. At 10.04 am, Mr Davies emailed the Court advising he had been released fromdetention on 11 April 2021.[8] On 13 April 2021 at 10.38 am, a Deputy Registrar at the Christchurch HighCourt confirmed she had spoken to Ms Hawkins that morning and Ms Hawkins hadconfirmed she had been released but would not confirm this in writing or in an email.[9] On 13 April 2021, Mander J issued a minute advising that, because bothapplicants had been released from managed isolation, the hearing previously set downfor 13 April 2021 at 2.15 pm was vacated. The matter was placed in the Judges Listfor call at 11.45 am on 27 April 2021. The Judge directed the positions regarding theapplications were to be confirmed in the interim.[10] There has been no further communication to the Court from or on behalf ofeither Mr Davies or Ms Hawkins.[11] By memorandum on 14 April 2021, Crown Law, for the Ministry of Business,Innovation and Employment, asked for the applications for habeas corpus writs to bedismissed on the basis both Ms Hawkins and Mr Davies had been released frommanaged isolation so there was no basis on which the Court could issue a writ ofhabeas corpus. That is clearly the position.[12] I accordingly dismiss the applications. The callover hearing currentlyscheduled for 27 April 2021 at 11.45 am is vacated.Solicitors:Crown Law, Wellington