IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE	
CIV-2019-404-728
[2019] NZHC 910	

BETWEEN	CARL DAVID GEORGE BUTCHER
Applicant	
AND	DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
Respondent	

Hearing:	On the papers	
Counsel:	Self-represented Applicant D J Perkins for Respondent	
Judgment:	29 April 2019	

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 29 April 2019 at 1 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors:	Crown Law Office, Wellington Copy for:	Applicant

BUTCHER v DISTRICT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 910 [29 April 2019]

[1]	Mr Butcher applies for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. He is a serving prisoner at the Auckland South Corrections Facility. He was sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment by Judge Field in the District Court at Auckland on 16 January 2018.1 That sentence relates to sixteen convictions, entered following a jury trial, for:

(a)	one charge of male assaults female;

(b)	eleven charges of assault on a child; and

(c)	four charges of assault with a weapon.

[2]	The application is based on Mr Butcher’s claims of innocence. He asserts that the complaints against him were fabricated. Mr Butcher further alleges fraud, deceit, and conspiracy on the part of his trial counsel, the prosecution, and judicial and court officers. Mr Butcher also takes issue with the way the Crown amended the particulars of one of the charges on which he was convicted.

[3]	Section 14(1A) Habeas Corpus Act 2001 governs Mr Butcher’s application and provides:

14	Determination of applications

(1A) … the High Court may refuse an application for the issue of the writ, without requiring the defendant to establish that the detention of the detention of the detained person is lawful, if …

(a)	…

(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.

[4]	Section 14(2) further provides that:

(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 –

1	R v Butcher (Notes of Judge CJ Field on Sentencing) [2018] NZDC 521.

(a)	a conviction of an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction
…

[5]	I  decline  Mr  Butcher’s  application.	He is lawfully detained given his convictions and sentence. No more needs to be said.

[6]	I dismiss the application accordingly.

Peters J