4 Jul 2018
The writ of habeas corpus was refused because the respondents established that the applicant's detention was lawful under the Immigration Act 2009 and there was a valid warrant of commitment; the applicant effectively conceded the lawfulness of detention, so habeas corpus relief could not be granted.
11 Jul 2011
The appellant is lawfully detained pursuant to warrants of commitment signed after sentencing; habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack valid convictions or sentences, so the habeas corpus application was correctly dismissed and the appeal fails.
28 Nov 2008
Detention is lawful because the sentencing notes and signed warrants unambiguously establish that the three-year sentence imposed by Judge Crosbie is cumulative on the earlier 4.5-year sentence imposed by Judge Moran; therefore habeas corpus relief is not available and the application is dismissed.
28 Nov 2008
The warrants of commitment and judges' sentencing notes plainly show the three-year sentence was ordered cumulative on the existing 4.5-year term, the warrants are properly signed and therefore the detention is lawful; consequently the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
17 Apr 2008
The applicant failed to establish that his detention under District Court warrants was unlawful; the warrants were validly issued under the Summary of Proceedings Act and nothing presented rebutted their lawfulness; section 14(2) and authority prevent habeas corpus from being used to challenge District Court bail decisions, therefore habeas corpus relief was not available and the application was dismissed.
17 Oct 2006
The respondents proved lawful detention by producing valid warrants of commitment and sentencing records; the allegations of administrative failings (parole decisions, Visiting Justice conduct, lack of printer) are matters for judicial review rather than habeas corpus and cannot be summarily resolved on this application; accordingly habeas corpus must be refused.