IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV-2020-404-000080
[2020] NZHC 23	

IN THE MATTER	of an application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus	
BETWEEN	CARL DAVID GEORGE BUTCHER
Applicant	
AND	THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
First Respondent

AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE
Second Respondent	

Hearing:	On the papers	
Counsel:	Self-represented Applicant P Gunn for Respondent	
Judgment:	23 January 2020	

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J
[On application for habeas corpus]

This judgment was delivered by Justice Fitzgerald On 23 January 2020 at 12.00 midday
Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:…………………………

Solicitors/counsel:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Copy to:
Mr C D G Butcher

BUTCHER v THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 23 [23 January 2020]

[1]	Mr Butcher’s writ of habeas corpus dated 12 January 2020, received by the Court on 22 January 2020, has been referred to me as Duty Judge.

[2]	In short, Mr Butcher challenges his continued detention at Auckland South Corrections facility. Mr Butcher is detained pursuant to a warrant issued following his conviction and then sentencing in the District Court on 16 January 2018. Mr Butcher’s position at all times has been, and continues to be, that he is innocent of the charges on which he was convicted. Mr Butcher obviously has his rights of appeal in relation to his conviction and/or sentence. I am unaware of the extent to which Mr Butcher has exercised those rights to date.

[3]	This is Mr Butcher’s third application for a writ of habeas corpus in relation to his present detention. The first application was determined by Lang J in Butcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections.1 Lang J dismissed the application, noting that the matters Mr Butcher complained of were properly matters to be raised and determined in Mr Butcher’s (then) forthcoming appeal against conviction. Lang J recorded that he had endeavoured to explain to Mr Butcher during the hearing of the habeas corpus application that the Court could not go behind a valid warrant of commitment.

[4]	Mr Butcher’s second application was determined by Peters J in April of last year.2 It raised substantially the same matters as those raised on the application before Lang J. It appears that Peters J was not aware of Mr Butcher’s prior application. Section 15(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) provides that no further application for habeas corpus can be made on grounds requiring a re-examination by the Court of substantially the same questions as those considered by the Court on an earlier application. Peters J nevertheless dismissed Mr Butcher’s application on substantive grounds, namely that:

(a)	pursuant to s 14(1)A of the Act, a writ of habeas corpus was not the appropriate vehicle for Mr Butcher’s allegations to be considered; and

1	Butcher v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2019] NZHC 6.
2	Butcher v District Court [2019] NZHC 910.

(b)	pursuant to s 14(2) of the Act, a Judge is not entitled to call into question a conviction of a court of competent jurisdiction in any event.

[5]	I have received the files of Mr Butcher’s earlier applications. Given that this, his third application, raises substantially the same issues raised on his prior applications, it is not permissible for Mr Butcher to file a further application.

[6]	Accordingly, and on the basis of s 15(1) of the Act, the present application must be dismissed. It is not necessary in those circumstances to proceed to a hearing. Even if it had, however, proceeded to a hearing, it is plain that Mr Butcher’s application could not succeed, for the same reasons given by Lang and Peters JJ.

[7]	Mr Butcher’s application is accordingly dismissed.

Fitzgerald J