For those non-lawyers who might look at this, and I don't expect there to be many, habeus corpus is a fairly ancient procedure to rapidly challenge whether someone is being held in custody/imprisoned legally, it's a fairly special procedure and is usually allocated an urgent hearing. I even remember a case where the judge held a hearing in his lounge in his dressing gown in one instance. It's a powerful remedy or mechanism, of course there are certain people inclined to abuse, such as in the following.
"[1] Gordon: of the House of Israel (Mr Israel) seeks interim orders to effect the release of a “canine”, known as Sally. Sally was impounded by Dog Contro Officers employed by the Hauraki District Council (the Council) because Mr Israel had failed to pay her registration fee.
[2] In brief, Mr Israel deposes that “Sally is a living being who is loved and cared for as part of the Israel household”. Mr Israel does not accept that Sally is a dog. He submitted that the term “dog” has a number of meanings that are pejorative in nature. A “dog” is something he regards as “undesirable and therefore suitable for or requiring regulation”. On the other hand, he sees a canine such as Sally, who is inoffensive and a “well loved member” of his household as something that ought not to be the subject of regulation.
[3] For those reasons, Mr Israel declined to pay a registration fee for Sally to the Council. As a result of his failure to do so he was prosecuted under the Dog Control Act 1996. He was convicted after a defended hearing in the District Court at Waihi on 27 October 2006. He has lodged an appeal against conviction and the fine and Court costs imposed.
[4] Because Mr Israel failed to comply with a requirement that he pay the registration fee, Sally has been impounded by [the] Council...
[6] Mr Israel seeks, in the alternative:
a) An order for habeas corpus, releasing Sally from detention by the Council.
b) An Anton Piller order (I gather) to search the Council pound and to remove Sally into his care.
c) An interim injunction to restrain the Council from destroying Sally and requiring it to deliver Sally into his care pending substantive issues being determined.
[7] The Council oppose the application on the grounds:
a) That the writ of habeas corpus is only available to human beings. ...
[8] Mr Israel drew my attention to a sealed document issued by Nga Uri o Tupoto (Inc), purportedly as a “Record of Canine Whanau”...
(b) Habeas corpus
[14] The ancient writ of habeas corpus is designed to protect the liberty of the subject. It ensures that human beings who are alleged to be unlawfully detained may be brought before the Court to inquire into the reasons for the detention.
[15] The Habeas Corpus Act 2001 reaffirms “the historical and constitutional purpose of the writ of habeas corpus as a vital means of safeguarding individual liberty”: s 5(a). The Habeas Corpus Act speaks of the Court’s jurisdiction to order release of a “detained person”.
[16] Mr Israel argued that the phrase “person” extended to a canine. That argument is untenable...
[28] It is unsurprising that the term “dog” is not defined by the Dog Control Act. Parliament must be taken to have assumed that the citizens of this country were perfectly capable of identifying a dog when they saw one. Sally is described as a “female, black border collie” who, when seen by a Dog Control Officer (on Mr Israel’s property) on 27 February 2006, was with a litter of pups. That is ample evidence to demonstrate that Sally is a “dog” for the purposes of the Dog Control Act."
Gordon: of the House of Israel v Sexton HC, 15 December 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment