Eaden v Superintendent of Christchurch Women's Prison

[2023] NZHC 2651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2023-409-513

[2023] NZHC 2651

BETWEEN

EMMA LESLEY EADEN

Applicant

AND

SUPERINTENDENT OF CHRISTCHURCH WOMEN’S PRISON

Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Defendant in Person
Judgment:	21 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 September 2023 at 5 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:     .

EADEN v SUPERINTENDENT OF CHRISTCHURCH WOMEN’S PRISON [2023] NZHC 2651 [21

September 2023]

[1]        Emma Eaden has today filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus, dated 12 September 2023, that has been referred to me as duty Judge.

[2]        This morning, Ms Eaden appeared before Dunningham J to argue her appeal against a refusal to admit to her to bail on charges she faces in the District Court. A decision on her appeal is currently reserved. The application for a writ of habeas corpus is simply a repetition of her argument regarding the merits of the bail decision that is the subject of the appeal.

[3]        On 1 September 2023, Churchman J  dismissed  an  earlier  application  by Ms Eaden for a writ of habeas corpus, which appears to relate to the same bail decision by Judge Duggan in the Christchurch District Court and resulted in her being remanded in custody. It was observed, at the time that application was dismissed, that notwithstanding non-compliance with procedural requirements of the Habeas Corpus Act (the Act), it was clear that what Ms Eaden was attempting to do was challenge the District Court’s decision to refuse her bail.

[4]Section 14 of the Act provides:

1. Determination of applications

   (1)If the defendant fails to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, the High Court must grant as a matter of right a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the detained person from detention.

   (1A) Despite subsection (1), the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detained person is lawful, if the court is satisfied that—

(a)section 15(1) applies; or

(b)an application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by the applicant.

…

[5]Section 15(1) provides:

15       Finality of determinations

(1)Subject to the rights of appeal conferred by section 16 of this Act and to sections 68 to 71 of the Senior Courts Act 2016, the determination of an application is final and no further application can be made by any person either to the same or to a different Judge on grounds requiring a re-examination by the court of substantially the same questions as those considered by the court when the earlier application was refused.

[6]Section 14(2) of the Act provides:

(2)A Judge dealing with an application must enquire into the matters of fact and law claimed to justify the detention and is not confined in that enquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors; but this subsection does not entitle a Judge to call into question—

…

(b)      a ruling as to bail by a court of competent jurisdiction.

[7]        Where the Court is satisfied that s 14(1A) applies, it may reject the application on the papers.1 The present application seeks to relitigate the question of bail that has already been the subject of argument as early as this morning on an appeal from the District Court’s bail decision.

[8]        Not only is it clear that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the merits of bail decisions, which reside at first instance with the District Court and thereafter in this Court by way of rights of appeal that Ms Eaden has exercised, but this Court is prohibited on an application for habeas corpus from calling into question a bail ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction. This is what Ms Eaden’s application seeks to do.

[9]        Further, as noted, Churchman J has already made a ruling regarding an earlier application for habeas corpus by Ms Eaden regarding her custodial status in respect of her current charges. It follows that s 15(1) of the Act applies. No further application can be made requiring a re-examination of substantially the same question as that previously put before this Court for its consideration on an earlier application.

[10]      Because ss 14(1A)(a) and (b) and 15(1) apply to Ms Eaden’s habeas corpus application, it can be rejected on the papers without a hearing, and I do so.

1      Grant v Ministry of Justice [2021] NZHC 1270.

[11]The application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.