16 Nov 2023
The application was dismissed because the applicant was not detained at the date of the hearing and habeas corpus requires a current detention to challenge; therefore no writ could issue.
8 Sept 2023
The applicant's detention remained lawful due to valid District Court remand warrants and prior judicial findings; the present habeas application advances no substantiated new grounds and is therefore an abuse of process that must be dismissed under s 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
24 May 2023
Court accepted evidence that Dr Dean had been assigned and undertook the responsible clinician role despite the absence of a completed internal transfer form and that Ms Firth was sufficiently involved through oversight and review of clinical reports; the omission of the transfer form was an administrative error of form not substance and did not render the s 30 order unlawful; further, the issues were not appropriately resolved by habeas corpus because they required nuanced factual assessment of fitness for compulsory care, so the habeas corpus application was refused.
7 Sept 2022
Deputy registrar's mistaken preparation of the warrant was an administrative act not covered by judicial immunity; that administrative error was a substantial and operative cause of the plaintiff's unlawful and arbitrary 33-day detention contrary to s22 NZBORA; the Judge's later signature did not supersede causation; PVCA applies and permits exceptional compensation; award of NZBORA damages of $11,000 plus interest and a declaration was appropriate.
5 Apr 2022
The Crown produced a judge-signed warrant and sentencing record demonstrating lawful detention; the applicant did not rebut that lawful justification and relied on grounds (challenge to conviction, international instruments, police mistreatment, alleged judicial contract breach) that are not appropriate bases for habeas corpus relief; therefore the writ was refused.
21 Oct 2021
The Court held that although the receptionist and manager unlawfully detained the appellant such that some force to escape could be justified, the appellant's repeated ramming of the gate was an unreasonable and disproportionate means of escape and therefore upheld the conviction for intentional damage; however, continuing to edge the vehicle slowly towards the complainant who deliberately remained in the vehicle's path did not demonstrate unreasonable or disproportionate conduct by the appellant and the conviction for assault with a weapon was quashed because the Crown failed to disprove the…
20 Jul 2021
The documents filed by the appellant did not constitute an application for habeas corpus nor establish unlawful detention; the appeal therefore had no arguable basis and was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, warranting striking out under r 44A(1)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.
16 Dec 2020
Leave to appeal was granted only in part: the Supreme Court allowed a single approved question addressing whether the applicant was unlawfully detained after 20 December 2008 given the Attorney-General's direction was not issued until 14 January 2009; all other grounds lacked sufficient prospects of success or practical consequence and leave was refused. The Court relied on the concurrent factual and legal findings below, absence of pleaded issues for some constitutional questions, and the lack of practical prejudice from absent guidelines to deny further leave.
22 Oct 2020
The Judge concluded that the evidence in respect of charges 3,7,9,10,12 and 15 was so manifestly discredited or unreliable that it would be unsafe to convict and unjust to continue the trial, and accordingly dismissed those charges under s147(4)(c); the dismissal also extended to charges previously addressed in the court's earlier ruling.
25 Sept 2019
The application was dismissed because it sought to re‑examine and quash convictions (which s14(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act precludes), was repetitive and barred by the Act's finality provision (s15), did not properly challenge the lawfulness of detention established by the warrant of commitment, and attempted improperly to use habeas corpus to obtain bail; appropriate remedies are appeal or prerogative of mercy.