New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral attack on conviction

Legal area

Court

5 Sept 2023

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v DAVID BRIAN COLLINS [2023] NZHC 2488

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2488
Court

High Court

The recall application was struck out as an abuse of process under r7.42A/r15.1 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction because the affidavits relied upon were neither fresh nor relevant to the prior strike-out judgment, the application sought effectively to relitigate final criminal convictions and to press a collateral settlement agenda, and there was no proper basis to recall Priestley J's decision.
25 Nov 2022

S v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 3108

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3108
Court

High Court

The habeas corpus application was refused because it amounted to a collateral attack on the applicant's conviction barred by s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, the issues had been previously litigated in higher courts making habeas an inappropriate remedy, and the applicant's detention was lawful as evidenced by conviction, sentence and warrant documents and the Parole Board decision.
30 Apr 2021

PRESCOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 941

Citation

[2021] NZHC 941
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application sought interlocutory relief to recall a prior judgment without any arguable error of fact or law justifying interlocutory appeal; the judicial review claim was an improper collateral attack on a conviction and subsequent success in a criminal appeal does not justify recalling valid civil procedural orders given the need for finality of litigation and the integrity of the law.
1 Apr 2021

GRANT v MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2021] NZHC 740

Citation

[2021] NZHC 740
Court

High Court

Because the applicant was not in current detention at the time of filing and s 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act requires current detention for such applications, the habeas corpus application was not maintainable and was dismissed.
12 Mar 2021

PRESCOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 483

Citation

[2021] NZHC 483
Court

High Court

The recall application is dismissed because the applicant improperly used judicial review as a collateral attack on his conviction and his subsequent success on a criminal appeal does not provide a basis to recall the High Court's earlier civil judgment; the prior decisions remain valid and the strike‑out was correct.
12 Nov 2019

TOBIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 2954

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2954
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the respondent demonstrated lawful detention under a valid warrant signed by the sentencing Judge and habeas corpus cannot be used to collaterally attack a valid District Court conviction on summary process.
17 Aug 2012

SLAVICH V COLLINS & ORS COSTS HC HAM CIV-2011-419-000463

Citation

openlaw-4f3a2773_760a_4f6d_bcc9_b373b926d952.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's claim was an abuse of process and constituted a collateral attack on final criminal decisions; defendants as successful parties are entitled to costs. Although the plaintiff's conduct fell within r14.6(4)(a) (warranting indemnity costs), the Court exercised its discretion not to award indemnity costs to avoid exacerbating the litigant's grievance and instead awarded normal 2B costs of $14,329.10 inclusive of disbursements and GST to defendants.
17 Nov 2011

SLAVICH v R SC 108/2011

Citation

SC 108/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the substitution of imprisonment for unpaid reparation was a legitimate exercise of sentencing discretion reviewed by the Court of Appeal, the applicant could not properly re-open his conviction in a sentence-only appeal, and no matter of public importance or substantial miscarriage of justice was shown.