28 Jun 2023
The application was dismissed because the applicant's detention is lawfully justified by the warrant of commitment and the application amounted to prohibited relitigation and improper use of habeas corpus under s 14(1A) and s 15 of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001; administrative complaints about prison facilities or transfers are not grounds for habeas corpus and should be pursued by judicial review.
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.
16 Sept 2021
The Court held the application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined because it did not raise a matter of general or public importance nor a sufficient risk of miscarriage of justice; the High Court costs order was set aside because the prosecution for breach of release conditions should never have been brought as no valid release conditions or licence existed at the time of the alleged offence, the appellant's pursuit of dismissal and costs was reasonable and not vexatious, and therefore the costs award against him was unjustified; appellate costs of NZD 1,500 were awarded to the a…
21 May 2021
The Chief Executive produced warrants of commitment that prima facie established lawful authority for detention; the applicant failed to demonstrate that those warrants did not in fact justify detention, therefore the application for habeas corpus must be dismissed.
17 Dec 2020
Sections 308 and 184 of the Immigration Act 2009 amount to an express statutory provision excluding the general right of appeal in s 124 of the District Court Act 2016; accordingly the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a District Court warrant of commitment issued under s 317 and the appeal is dismissed.
2 Sept 2020
Detention was lawful because a valid warrant of commitment for two years and two months' imprisonment was produced and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the documentation did not lawfully justify the detention; therefore habeas corpus relief was not available and the application was dismissed.
10 Aug 2020
The documentary record (guilty pleas, warrants of commitment signed by a judge and the Parole Board decision) established that the applicant is lawfully detained, so habeas corpus relief was not available and the application was dismissed; release will occur only on the statutory release date or if the Parole Board orders earlier release.
25 May 2020
The applicant's detention is lawful because the District Court Judge had jurisdiction to impose imprisonment under s19 of the District Court Act 2016 and the Sentencing Act 2002 expressly authorises courts exercising criminal jurisdiction to impose terms of imprisonment; the warrant of commitment validly reflects that sentence, so habeas corpus relief is not warranted.
2 Aug 2019
The Department produced a valid warrant of commitment showing a judicially imposed two month sentence; that evidence established lawful detention, so the habeas corpus application failed and must be declined.
5 Jun 2019
The warrant complied with statutory requirements under Criminal Procedure Act 2011 s168(4) and Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 r3.5; District Court Rules r11.11 do not apply to criminal warrants; the applicant's lack of consent does not render detention unlawful; therefore detention is lawful and the habeas corpus application is dismissed.