VAN WAKEREN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 16/2012
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant merely repeated earlier arguments, the alleged omitted fourth ground (natural justice) was not substantively distinct from the grounds already considered (including challenge to the warrant and to imposition of a minimum period), and there was no compelling...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 16/2012
- Parties
- Applicant: Ronald Van Wakeren; Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 1 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Recall Application Following Dismissal of Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Habeas Corpus / Recall Application; Judgment Delivered 1 August 2012
- Outcome
- Application for recall of the judgment dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Recall of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Natural Justice, Minimum Period of Imprisonment, Warrant of Commitment
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ronald Van Wakeren
Applicant
The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Recall Application Following Dismissal of Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Habeas Corpus / Recall Application; Judgment Delivered 1 August 2012
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court should recall its earlier judgment
- 2 Whether a ground alleging breach of natural justice was omitted or unaddressed
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to impose a minimum period of imprisonment
Ratio Decidendi
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant merely repeated earlier arguments, the alleged omitted fourth ground (natural justice) was not substantively distinct from the grounds already considered (including challenge to the warrant and to imposition of a minimum period), and there was no compelling basis to recall the Court's earlier leave judgment.
Court Disposition
Application for recall of the judgment dismissed.
Orders
- Application for recall dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
VAN WAKEREN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 16/2012 [1 August 2012]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 16/2012[2012] NZSC 65BETWEEN RONALD VAN WAKERENApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Elias CJ, William Young and Chambers JJCounsel: Applicant in personA M Powell for RespondentJudgment: 1 August 2012JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (RECALL)The application for recall of the judgment of the Court dated 5 April 2012 [2012] NZSC 24 is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The applicant seeks a recall (or perhaps a reconsideration) of the judgment of this Court delivered on 5 April this year1 dismissing his application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal2 upholding a High Court3 rejection of an application for a writ of habeas corpus.[2] The applicant's submissions in support of the application largely either repeat or supplement the submissions earlier made and in this way take issue with the conclusions expressed in the judgment dismissing the application for leave to appeal.1 Van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2012] NZSC 24.2 Van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2012] NZCA 22.3 Van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections HC Auckland CIV-2012-404-208, 26 January 2012.It is not the practice of the Court to engage with arguments of that sort. There is, however, one other point raised by the applicant which requires a response.[3] The applicant says that his original application for leave to appeal was based on four grounds and the judgment of this Court identified only three grounds, leaving unaddressed, he says, a fourth ground, that of breach of natural justice. It is true that the application for leave to appeal was based on four separate grounds of appeal and that the fourth was an allegation of breach of natural justice. But, the second and third grounds were in substance the same, namely, a challenge to the form of his warrant of commitment and the fourth at least encompassed the same issue. And, in the applicant's subsequently filed memorandum, the grounds of appeal were reduced to three (with the second and third grounds earlier identified being conflated into a single ground). And, while the third ground in the memorandum was headed as a complaint that the Court of Appeal had not observedthe principles of natural justice, his argument under this heading "in essence" as heput it, was that the Court of Appeal in the earlier sentence appeal had no jurisdiction to impose a minimum period of imprisonment. This ground of appeal was therefore accurately referred to in the earlier leave judgment as involving a challenge to the imposition of the minimum period of imprisonment.[4] The application for recall is therefore declined.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington