JESSIE CLARK AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 81/2024

[2024] NZSC 129

BETWEEN JESSIE CLARK
Applicant
AND NEW ZEALAND POLICE
First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
W S Taffs for Respondents
Judgment:	2 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024

(Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Clark seeks recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024 declining

leave to appeal directly from a decision of the High Court.[1] The High Court declined

an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas corpus application was made

on the basis that, as he is subject to electronically monitored bail (EM bail), he is

unlawfully detained.

[1] Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106. See also Clark v New Zealand Police [2024]

The recall application is advanced on the basis the Court may have

misinterpreted the nature and issue underlying the application for habeas corpus. The

recall application also canvasses a range of associated matters, for example, seeking

disqualification of a District Court Judge of any further matters involving the

applicant.

We accept the submission for the respondents that the recall application is in

essence an attempt to relitigate the Court’s reasoning for declining leave. That is

apparent from the fact that, primarily, what the applicant seeks on recall is release from

detention “with ongoing, unlawful bail constraints”. The leave application dealt with

the challenge to the High Court’s refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus in relation to

detention on bail. Relitigation in this manner does not provide a basis for recall.

To the extent new issues are raised, it is relevant that matters have since moved

on. A further application for habeas corpus based similarly on “unlawful detention”

resulting from the conditions of EM bail was declined by the High Court on

12 September 2024.[2] In the judgment declining that application the High Court noted

the applicant was no longer subject to EM bail but was in custody, bail having been

declined.

[2] Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHC 2644 (Dunningham J).

In all the circumstances we see no basis for recalling our earlier judgment.[3]
[3] See Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) at 633; Saxmere Company
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 August 2024

(Clark v New Zealand Police [2024] NZSC 106) is dismissed.

Solicitors:

Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch for Respondents

NZHC 2078 (Dunningham J).

CLARK v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2024] NZSC 129 [2 October 2024]

Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd [2008] NZSC 94, (2008) 19 PRNZ 132 at
[1]– [2]; and Uhrle v R [2020] NZSC 62, [2020] 1 NZLR 286 at [20].

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jessie Clark applied to the Supreme Court of New Zealand to recall the Court's earlier judgment of 28 August 2024, which declined leave to appeal from a High Court decision that had dismissed his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Clark argued that his detention under electronically monitored bail was unlawful. The respondents, the New Zealand Police and the Attorney-General, opposed the recall application, maintaining that it was an attempt to relitigate the Court's earlier reasoning. The Court needed to decide whether there were grounds to recall its earlier judgment, particularly if the applicant had raised a significant misunderstanding or new issues that warranted reconsideration.

The Court found that the recall application was essentially an attempt to relitigate the Court's earlier decision and did not provide a basis for recall. The primary issue raised by Clark was to seek release from detention under what he deemed to be unlawful bail constraints, which was the same issue addressed in the leave application. The Court also noted that new issues raised in the recall application were irrelevant because the applicant was no longer subject to electronically monitored bail and was in custody. The Court concluded that there were no grounds to recall its earlier judgment, as the recall application did not present a significant misunderstanding or new issues warranting reconsideration.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, affirming the earlier judgment that denied leave to appeal from the High Court's decision. The Court did not see any basis for recalling its earlier judgment, as the recall application was an attempt to relitigate the Court's reasoning. The Court emphasised that matters had moved on since the earlier judgment, with the High Court subsequently declining another habeas corpus application based on similar grounds. The Court's decision was final, and no further recall application would be entertained without significant new grounds.

The final order of the Court was to dismiss the application for recall of the judgment of 28 August 2024. The applicant, Jessie Clark, was not granted leave to appeal from the High Court's decision to decline his application for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court's dismissal of the recall application was based on the finding that the application was an attempt to relitigate the earlier decision without presenting new or significant grounds for reconsideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

BETWEEN	JESSIE CLARK
Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND POLICE
First Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Second Respondent