New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prisoner transfer

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2023

CLARKE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 1651

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1651
Court

High Court

Interim relief was declined because the transfer was made on lawful muster grounds under s54(3)(b), the s54(4) considerations were addressed as far as reasonably practicable, the applicant's substantive claim lacked strong apparent merit, and any prejudice could be remedied if substantive relief were granted later, so preservation of position did not require prohibition of transfer.
11 Jan 2022

WHIU v PRISON DIRECTOR OF NGAWHA PRISON [2022] NZHC 4

Citation

[2022] NZHC 4
Court

High Court

The warrant of commitment records a sentence of life imprisonment and therefore the applicant is lawfully detained; challenges to prisoner transfers are administrative matters for judicial review rather than by habeas corpus, so the habeas application must be dismissed.
6 Oct 2017

HUDSON v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL [2017] NZHC 2456

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2456
Court

High Court

Although some procedural shortcomings existed (notably limited original reasoning on family proximity and an unhelpful reference to the applicant's use of the complaints system), those defects were not material; the decision to refuse transfer fell within the wide discretion afforded by s54 of the Corrections Act and was not unlawful, unreasonable or in breach of natural justice, so the court will not set it aside.
16 Dec 2016

KERRYN MITCHELL v THE PRISON DIRECTOR AROHATA PRISON [2016] NZHC 3103

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3103
Court

High Court

The application to strike out as moot was declined: completion of a prison sentence does not automatically render challenges to treatment during imprisonment moot; none of the substantive issues had been decided and declaratory relief can be substantive, so the matters remain justiciable and should be determined rather than dismissed as academic.
20 Feb 2013

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2012-404-2814

Citation

openlaw-4c5903a4_f0b9_40ec_b314_9e82e6910be9.pdf
Court

High Court

Despite procedural breaches (failure to give statutory notice of transfer and delayed written reasons, and delayed reasons for directed segregation), the transfer to Spring Hill, the security reclassification, management/support plans, directed segregation and the Visiting Justice's determinations on disciplinary charges were lawful and reasonable exercises of discretion; procedural lapses did not invalidate the substantive decisions and no remedial declarations were warranted because defects were spent and had no continuing consequence.
20 Jun 2012

REEKIE V DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2012-404-002814

Citation

openlaw-b1da4886_4bc7_474a_973c_805d5c05ee6b.pdf
Court

High Court

Interim relief was refused because the applicant lacked a position to preserve in relation to transfer and medication issues and, although a position to preserve existed in relation to pending disciplinary charges, the balance of convenience and strong public interest in allowing prison disciplinary processes to proceed outweighed the applicant's prejudice; declarations were unnecessary as they merely restated legal obligations.
29 Apr 2009

FORREST V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2009-404-002345

Citation

openlaw-e70efa1e_85c7_4f69_a77c_f149a3f44482.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 37(2) of the Corrections Act 2004 authorises detention in any prison notwithstanding a committal order naming a specific prison, and the affidavit evidence that the applicant is classified BB and that Auckland Prison holds BB and CB prisoners justified his detention; therefore the habeas corpus application must be dismissed.
9 Oct 2006

HINES V THE MANAGER OF CUSTODIAL SERVICES, AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV 2006-404-6060

Citation

openlaw-bd0d761a_a73e_4f15_a404_080d37bcb5b7.pdf
Court

High Court

Habeas corpus will not lie to challenge a change in security classification or conditions of detention where the lawfulness of detention under the warrant is not disputed; the applicant must use the statutory reconsideration under Corrections Act s48 and, if necessary, seek judicial review; accordingly the habeas corpus application is dismissed and will not be treated as judicial review given the respondent has initiated reconsideration.