New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention law

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2021

REREKURA v PRISON DIRECTOR AT AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2021] NZHC 651

Citation

[2021] NZHC 651
Court

High Court

Although an initial warrant contained an error and the applicant was given incorrect information, the detention was at all times authorised by a corrected warrant reflecting the sentencing court's intention; the applicant's BORA claims were misconceived and the proper remedy to challenge the sentence was an appeal, so the judicial review application is dismissed.
2 Sept 2020

ASPINALL-SU’A v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 2256

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2256
Court

High Court

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.
18 May 2020

COLEMAN v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 1033

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1033
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus application under s 14(1A)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act because habeas corpus was not the appropriate procedure to challenge the administration and conditions of the intensive supervision sentence and ISO; to the extent the applicant was detained at Tōruatanga, that detention was lawful under the conditions of the intensive supervision sentence and ISO and alternative remedies were available.
17 Apr 2020

AB v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2020] NZHC 756

Citation

[2020] NZHC 756
Court

High Court

The application for habeas corpus was dismissed because the respondent had followed the statutory Mental Health Act procedures demonstrating a lawful basis for detention and because challenges to a finding of mental disorder are appropriately determined within the Mental Health Act framework rather than by habeas corpus.
13 Feb 2020

SAIFFITI v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS COMMUNITY PROBATION SERVICES PALMERSTON NORTH [2020] NZHC 151

Citation

[2020] NZHC 151
Court

High Court

Because the applicant was detained under an apparently regular interim recall order and arrest warrant signed by a Parole Board convenor, habeas corpus was not an appropriate vehicle to determine the applicant's upstream procedural complaints; the Parole Board must consider final recall and any judicial review can be pursued if required, therefore the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
5 Jun 2019

MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1251

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1251
Court

High Court

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.
9 Apr 2019

WHICHMAN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 747

Citation

[2019] NZHC 747
Court

High Court

The warrant was valid because it explicitly remanded the applicant for the period of the adjournment and thus provided lawful authority for detention; typographical or outcome-notation errors in the warrant do not invalidate detention; complaints about placement or conditions of detention (including segregation from convicted prisoners) are matters for judicial review, not for habeas corpus, and repeat applications raising substantially the same issues may be dismissed.
7 May 2018

SMITH v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 980 [8 May 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 980
Court

High Court

The March 2018 warrant lawfully detained the applicant; the habeas corpus procedure cannot be used to re‑open or substitute for bail rulings of a court of competent jurisdiction or to relitigate jurisdictional challenges already rejected on appeal; the application was based on pseudo‑legal claims and therefore an abuse of process, so the habeas corpus writ was refused.
22 Dec 2017

MARTIN v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZHC 3294

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3294
Court

High Court

The applicant's sovereignty-based claim is legally untenable and the respondent established lawful authority for detention by producing a valid Warrant of Commitment issued under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002; accordingly the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
12 Apr 2017

AN (SC 24/2017) v BUPA CARE SERVICES (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 49

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 194
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because no exceptional circumstances justified a direct appeal to this Court, there was no material before the Court challenging the legality of the applicant's detention, and more appropriate remedies exist (appeal under the PPPR Act, review, or judicial review); further, ongoing name suppression is required under s80 PPPR Act and ss11B–11D Family Court Act 1980.