Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of New Zealand Decisions

Bruce v Prison Director, Manawatu Prison [2022] NZHC 2405 (20 September 2022)

Last Updated: 6 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Declining habeas corpus)

• [1] By writ dated 10 September 2022 the applicant sought an order under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). Mr Bruce is currently detained at Manawatu Prison. The essence of his application was that the warrant for his detention, and the associated charging documents, were in the wrong name.

• [2] The application was referred to me as Duty Judge, and in accordance with the time requirements set by the Act I had a telephone hearing on 13 September. After hearing from Mr Bruce and counsel for the respondent I indicated that the application would be dismissed for reasons I would outline in writing. These are the reasons.

BRUCE v THE PRISON DIRECTOR, MANAWATU PRISON [2022] NZHC 2405 [20 September 2022]

• [3] Section 14 of the Act provides:

14 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.

(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—

(a) a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court Martial of New Zealand established under section 8 of the Court Martial Act 2007, or a disciplinary officer acting under Part 5 of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971; or

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

(3) Subject to section 13(2), a Judge must determine an application by—

(a) refusing the application for the issue of the writ; or

(b) issuing the writ ordering the release from detention of the detained person.

...

• [4] In the present case the respondent has produced documents that show that the applicant has been charged with a series of offences, including two charges of strangulation and one of assault of a person in a family relationship. Those documents reveal that he first appeared in the Hamilton District Court on 12 April 2022, and that after two further hearings he made an application for EM bail on 6 July in the Levin District Court which was declined. Following a further case review hearing before the Court on 22 July he was remanded in custody until a Judge-alone trial on 21 November 2022.
• [5] The respondent produced the warrant for the applicant’s detention until 21 November 2022, signed by Judge Edwards on 22 July 2022.

• [6] Once the respondent has produced apparently valid warrants for the detention, it is necessary for the applicant to demonstrate why the detention is not lawful.¹ The applicant’s argument here is that these documents, including the warrant of detention, are all in the wrong legal name, and that his correct legal name is Brendan Rawiri Bruce rather than Brendan Arthur Norman Thomas as used in the documentation. In response the respondent referred me to materials that shows that the applicant has used a number of aliases or other names over some time. This explains the different names in existence. In any event the dispute about the name used in the formal Court documents does not mean that the applicant’s detention is not lawful. I am satisfied that the person charged with the offending and subject to the Court determinations, including the most recent decision remanding him in custody, is the applicant. He is the person who has been charged with strangulation and assault on a person in a family relationship, and he is the person who identified himself as Brendan Bruce on his arrest. The fact that different names have been used in the charging documents is neither here nor there. For this reason I view this case as being in the same category as that considered by Muir J in Bowden v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.²

• [7] For these reasons the writ of habeas corpus was dismissed.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for the Respondent

1. Bennett v Superintendent of Rimutaka Prison [2001] NZCA 286; [2002] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) at [70]; Manuel v Superintendent, Hawkes Bay Regional Prison [2005] 1 NZLR 161 (CA) at [49].

² Bowden v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZHC 2504.