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.
8 May 2020
The application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was declined because the applicant's residence and movement restrictions were imposed pursuant to a sentence of intensive supervision and an interim supervision order made for rehabilitation and public protection, and thus the applicant was not unlawfully detained.
28 Mar 2019
The application for habeas corpus was refused because the applicant is lawfully detained pursuant to a valid Warrant of Commitment (26 February 1991), habeas corpus is not the appropriate remedy to challenge classification or conditions of detention, and the correct avenues are Parole Act processes or judicial review; prior decisions (including Bennett and the applicant's earlier 2004 proceedings) preclude relief by habeas corpus.
30 Apr 2014
Moving the plaintiff to the ARU and subjecting him to the ARU regime that removed his opportunity to associate with other prisoners amounted to de facto segregation in breach of the Corrections Act segregation provisions; absence of a privacy screen in D Block breached Regulations; other complaints did not establish breaches of NZBORA s9 or s23(5) and did not warrant damages, though a declaration was required to vindicate the statutory right.
30 Sept 2010
The production of a valid warrant of committal satisfied the Court that the applicant's detention was lawful; the Parole Board complaints did not go to the lawfulness of detention and were not suitable for summary resolution on habeas corpus and therefore must proceed by judicial review with the Court directing substitution of respondents and timetable for record and pleadings.
24 Jul 2008
The applicant failed to demonstrate that his detention was unlawful because he is detained under a valid warrant and his convictions and sentence have been upheld on appeal; habeas corpus is not the correct remedy for complaints about conditions of detention (those are for judicial review); therefore the habeas corpus application must be dismissed.
9 Oct 2006
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.
16 Jun 2006
The application was dismissed because the complaints relate to the conditions and treatment of detention rather than to the lawfulness of detention itself; under established authority the correct remedy is judicial review and not habeas corpus, and there was no unusual urgency to justify an oral application under s7(2).