[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Download] [Help]

Endnotes

^[1] Pursuant to An Act for the Better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland (1881) 44 Vict c 4, enacted in March 1881, some 10 weeks before Parnell's arrest.

^[2] To distinguish them from existing provisions this report refers to all draft Act provisions in full and in italics, eg, section 1.

^[3] Cox v Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, 536, per Lord Herschell.

^[4] Secretary of State for Home Affairs v O'Brien [1923] AC 603, 621, per Lord Dunedin.

^[5] (No 2) [1959] 1 QB 358 and (No 3) [1959] Ch 368, affirmed [1959] 1 WLR 807.

^[6] Discussed, for example, by Sharpe, The Law of Habeas Corpus (2nd ed, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989), 202. The Court of Appeal's decision in Flickinger v Crown Colony of Hong Kong [1991] 1 NZLR 439, 440_441, suggests inconclusively that a right of appeal may in some way have been conferred by s 23(1)(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. See too R v B [1995] 2 NZLR 172, 179, 181, 185, 186, 187.

^[7] A note of which is reported: [1985] 2 NZLR 224.

^[8] See, for example, the discussion in Sharpe, 62 and 201_202; In re Hastings (No 2) [1959] 1 QB 358, 371; and Re Tarling [1979] 1 All ER 981, 987.

^[9] See, for example, the court's observations in Re D (Infants) [1969] NZLR 865, 865, and Lord Goddard LCJ, "The Prerogative Writs: Habeas Corpus" [1956] NZLJ 214, 214: "It would be much better, I think, if all those could be sent to the Divorce Court."

^[10] "A hasty remedy": Cox v Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, 514_515, per Lord Halsbury LC.

^[11] See, for example, R v Home Secretary, ex parte Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890, 894.

^[12] Preamble to the Habeas Corpus Act 1816 (Imp).

^[13] See, for example, the discussions in 1(1) Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed Reissue, 1989), para 244, and The Law of Parliamentary Privilege in New Zealand (nzlc mp5, 1996), para 80.

^[14] See para C3 of this report and 1(1) Halsbury's Laws of England, para 265.

^[15] Most recently by s 2(1) of the Penal Institutions Amendment Act 1994, which (from 1 March 1995: cl 3(1) of SR 1995/3) inserted in s 2 of the Penal Institutions Act 1954 a definition of "attendance for judicial purposes". For completeness, we note, however, the misconceived invocation (abandoned at hearing) of the writ of habeas corpus ad deliberandum in Palmer v Superintendent of Auckland Maximum Security Prison [1991] 3 NZLR 315, 317_318.