Billingham v Police

[2019] NZHC 133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-181

[2019] NZHC 133

UNDER

the Habeas Corpus Act 2001

IN THE MATTER

of an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus

BETWEEN

MAUREEN BILLINGHAM

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing:	12 February 2019 (on the papers)
Judgment:	12 February 2019

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

BILLINGHAM v POLICE [2019] NZHC 133 [12 February 2019]

[1]                 On 11 February 2019, Mrs Billingham filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

[2]                 The basis of the application is that Mrs Billingham’s husband has been charged with an offence  against  her and  one of the conditions  of his  bail  terms  is  that  Mr Billingham is:

… not to associate or have contact, directly or indirectly, with the victim, Maureen Billingham.

[3]                 Mrs Billingham, in her application and associated affidavit, maintains that this bail condition restricts her to such an extent that she is within the definition of “detention” in the Habeas Corpus Act 2001. That definition is:

Detention includes every form of restraint of liberty of the person.

[4]                 Mrs Billingham alleges that the Judge who, in granting bail, imposed the condition on Mr Billingham was misinformed or was not informed about her view of the matter.

[5]There are three reasons why the application must be struck out:

(a)Mrs Billingham is not detained. There is no form of restraint of the liberty of her person. The bail condition binds Mr Billingham and not Mrs  Billingham.   Mrs   Billingham   is   free   to   associate   with  Mr Billingham if she wishes to. However, if Mr Billingham does so in breach of the bail condition then  there  will  be  consequences  for  Mr Billingham.

(b)There is no question that Mr Billingham is subject to a grant of bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction. A Judge is not entitled, pursuant to the Habeas Corpus Act 2001, to call into question a ruling as to bail by a Court of competent jurisdiction.1

1      Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2).

(c)The relevant purposes of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 are:2

(a)to reaffirm the historic and constitutional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individual liberty:

(b)to make better provision for restoring the liberty of persons unlawfully detained by establishing an effective procedure for applications to the High Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, and the expeditious determination of those applications:

…

This application does not fall within these purposes. To proceed with it would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

Decision

[6]The application is struck out.

Brewer J

2      Section 5.