Vincent v Auckland Prison [2024] NZHC 2066 (26 July 2024)

Last Updated: 3 September 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2024-404-001734 [2024] NZHC 2066

UNDER	the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
IN THE MATTER OF	an application for a writ of habeas corpus
BETWEEN	DEAN MICHAEL VINCENT Applicant
AND	AUCKLAND PRISON First Respondent NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD Second Respondent

Teleconference:	26 July 2024
Appearances:	D M Vincent in person C Fleury for the First Respondent No appearance by the Second Respondent
Judgment:	26 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 July 2024 at 4.15pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

..............................

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to Applicant

VINCENT v AUCKLAND PRISON [Application for writ of habeas corpus] [2023] NZHC 2066 [26 July 2024]

Introduction

• [1] Mr Vincent applies for a writ of habeas corpus under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act). Mr Vincent is a prisoner at Auckland Prison and was denied parole on 16 May 2024. Mr Vincent challenges the legitimacy of the Parole Board and says it is not independent and has not acted in accordance with the Parole Act 2002.

• [2] The Prison Manager of Auckland Prison (the Prison Manager) opposes the application and says that Mr Vincent is lawfully detained pursuant to a warrant of commitment under s 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Alternatively, the Prison Manager argued that the Court should refuse the application because it is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by Mr Vincent.

• [3] There was no appearance for the Parole Board.

Background

• [4] The Prison Manager has provided a warrant of commitment dated 31 March 2023 which records that:

(a) Mr Vincent was convicted of four charges of indecent assault, one charge of kidnapping, one charge of wilful damage, and two charges of male assaults female;

(b) Mr Vincent was sentenced by the Manukau District Court to a term of imprisonment of five years and seven months; and

(c) the Manager of Mount Eden Correction Facility was directed to receive Mr Vincent into their control and to detain Mr Vincent for the purposes of sentence.

• [5] The Parole Board declined to grant Mr Vincent parole on 9 May 2023 and again on 16 May 2024. Mr Vincent waived his right to appear at those hearings. Mr Vincent was represented by counsel at the 16 May 2024 hearing.

Grounds advanced by Mr Vincent

• [6] Mr Vincent provided a detailed and comprehensive written submission setting out the grounds for his application, which involve the following heads of argument:

(a) The Parole Board is biased and politicised.

(b) The “Government is promulgating a system whereby a parole applicant may not get parole unless he conforms to the Government’s notion of social desirability.”

(c) The Government is not meeting national and international minimum human rights for prisoners in its care and that such abuse extends to the Government “usurping the Parole Board unto itself.”

(d) The Department of Corrections (Corrections) has failed to rehabilitate prisoners. Mr Vincent refers to the increase in the prison population and the crime rate.

(e) Mr Vincent should not be required to follow the rehabilitation pathway prescribed by Corrections because it does not work.

(f) The Parole Board should not be responsible for reviewing its own decisions when it is biased.

• [7] Mr Vincent raises challenges that are both systemic and individual to his circumstances. At the hearing, Mr Vincent indicated that his concern is more with the way in which the Parole Board is structured and operating than with the decision to decline him parole.

Relevant law

• [8] The Court must grant a writ of habeas corpus if the defendant fails to establish that the detention of Mr Vincent is lawful.¹ Despite this, the Court may refuse an

¹ Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(1).

application without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention is lawful if 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

• [9] 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 inquiry to the correction of jurisdictional errors.³

• [10] The Judge must determine the application by refusing the application or issuing the writ ordering the release from detention of the detained person.⁴

Analysis

• [11] The Prison Manager relies on the warrant of commitment to justify Mr Vincent’s detention. In Manuel v Superintendent of Hawkes Bay Regional Prison the Court of Appeal considered that it would be a rare case where the production of a regular warrant would not be a decisive answer to a habeas corpus application:⁵

[49] A person who detains another can fairly be expected to establish, effectively on demand, the legal justification for the detention. In cases involving imprisonment or other statutory confinements, this will involve the production of a relevant warrant or warrants or other documents which provide the basis for the detention. We accept that apparently regular warrants (or other similar documents) will not always be a decisive answer to a habeas corpus application. But it will be a rare case, we think, where the habeas corpus procedures will permit the Court to enquire, into challenges on administrative law grounds to decisions which lie upstream of apparently regular warrants. This is particularly likely to be the case where the decision maker is not the detaining party. There may not be a bright line which distinguishes between those arguments which are available on habeas corpus applications and those which can only be deployed (if deployed at all) in judicial review proceedings. Nonetheless we see the test as coming down to whether the arguments in issue are properly susceptible to fair and sensible summary determination. If they are, they can be addressed in habeas corpus proceedings. If not, they must be held over for evaluation in judicial review proceedings.

• [12] The Prison Manager has produced a warrant and there is no issue as to any irregularity. The Prison Manager is the detaining party and is not the Parole Board

² Section 14(1A)(b).

³ Section 14(2).

⁴ Section 14(3).

⁵ Manuel v Superintendent of Hawkes Bay Regional Prison [2004] NZCA 440; [2005] 1 NZLR 161 (CA) at [49].

who is the decision maker. The arguments Mr Vincent raises challenge the independence of the Parole Board and not the legitimacy of the warrant held by the Prison Manager.

• [13] In Teina v Attorney-General⁶ the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against this Court’s decision to decline an habeas corpus application. The Parole Board had declined Mr Teina’s parole without giving him an opportunity to answer the Board’s concerns arising out of the material before it. Mr Teina had not applied for a review under s 67(1) of the Parole Act. The Court of Appeal considered that s 26 of the Parole Act created an avenue for Mr Teina’s position to be fully re-examined at a hearing at which he would have the opportunity to present submissions in support of his application.

• [14] The Court of Appeal did not consider that it was appropriate to convert the habeas corpus application into an application for judicial review. If that further parole application was unsuccessful, he would still have rights of review under s 67 of the Parole Act or by judicial review. The Court of Appeal held that Mr Teina was lawfully detained.

• [15] Consistent with Manuel and Teina, I am satisfied that Mr Vincent is lawfully detained pursuant to the warrant for commitment provided by the Prison Manager. The issues raised by Mr Vincent go to the legitimacy of the Parole Board’s decision.

• [16] For completeness, I consider that a habeas corpus application is not the appropriate procedure for considering the allegations made by Mr Vincent against the Parole Board for the reasons below.

• [17] The basis for Mr Vincent’s application are similar to those advanced in Manuel. Mr Manuel’s grounds of challenge included that the Chairperson of the Parole Board was biased, there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the recall decision was not legitimate.

⁶ Teina v Attorney-General [2007] NZCA 464.

• [18] In Manuel the Court of Appeal held that the Court was entitled to examine the administrative decision which underpinned the legality of the applicant’s detention and that:⁷

.. there seems to be no risk of injustice in requiring judicial review proceedings to be commenced in those cases in which administrative law challenges are not susceptible to fair summary determination.

• [19] The Court of Appeal considered that the test comes down to whether the arguments in issue are properly susceptible to fair and sensible summary determination. If not, they must be held over for evaluation in judicial review proceedings.⁸

• [20] In Manuel the Court of Appeal considered that an allegation that the Chairperson of the Parole Board was biased was: ⁹

... plainly unsuitable for summary determination on exiguous papers in the context of a habeas corpus application. If it is to be argued seriously, it should be in the context of judicial review proceedings, on appropriate notice and with a fair opportunity for response.

• [21] Mr Vincent argued that the Parole Board was given an opportunity to be heard on the habeas corpus application but chose not to appear. Even if the Parole Board appeared, I do not consider that the contentions advanced by Mr Vincent are suitable for summary determination. An evaluation of their merits could not fairly take place in the context of habeas corpus proceedings. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections or the Parole Board would be entitled to adduce evidence in response to the allegations.

• [22] I am not satisfied that the arguments are properly susceptible to fair and sensible summary determination. It would not warrant an unappealable determination in habeas corpus proceedings.

⁷ Manuel v Superintendent of Hawkes Bay Regional Prison, above n 5, at [49].

⁸ At [50].

⁹ At [81].

• [23] If Mr Vincent is contemplating judicial review proceedings, then he would be well advised to seek legal aid and take legal assistance in preparing the necessary papers.

Result

• [24] For the reasons set out above, I refuse Mr Vincent’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.

Tahana J