Nottingham v Ardern - [2020] NZCA 144
Date of Judgment
04 May 2020
Decision
Nottingham v Ardern (PDF 216 KB)
Summary
Appeals dismissed. Interim name suppression order. No order for costs.
Practice and procedure — Habeas Corpus.
The appellants have applied for writs of habeas corpus due to the impact of the New Zealand Government’s response to COVID-19 on them. The High Court Judge declined to issue the writs as detention for the purposes of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) was not established. Even if there was detention, the Judge considered it would be lawful. The Judge also declined to grant name suppression, although made an order for interim name suppression to accommodate an appeal to this Court on the issue. The appellants appeal the High Court’s judgment.
Issue: Did the High Court err when it declined to issue writs of habeas corpus in favour of the appellants?
Held: No. The restrictions under the Health Act (COVID-19 Alert Level 3) Order 2020 do impinge on a person’s movements, but still allow for a wide range of activity. Business, services and workplaces that have the relevant infection measures in place can be accessed. Outdoor exercise and recreation can be engaged in and bubbles arrangements extended within certain limits. The appellants’ liberty has not been restrained for the purposes of the Act.
Even if they were detained, the Crown would not have to establish that the detention was lawful as habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the appellants’ allegations. An expedited application for judicial review should be made to resolve the complex legal questions at issue in this case.
Issue: Did the High Court err when it declined applications for interim name suppression by the appellants in relation to their proceedings?
Held: No. The concerns raised by the appellants are not sufficient to displace the principle of open justice. To enable an appeal to the Supreme Court on this point, interim name suppression can continue until 4.00 pm on 8 May 2020 or such other time as the Supreme Court may determine
Practice and procedure — Habeas Corpus.
The appellants have applied for writs of habeas corpus due to the impact of the New Zealand Government’s response to COVID-19 on them. The High Court Judge declined to issue the writs as detention for the purposes of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 (the Act) was not established. Even if there was detention, the Judge considered it would be lawful. The Judge also declined to grant name suppression, although made an order for interim name suppression to accommodate an appeal to this Court on the issue. The appellants appeal the High Court’s judgment.
Issue: Did the High Court err when it declined to issue writs of habeas corpus in favour of the appellants?
Held: No. The restrictions under the Health Act (COVID-19 Alert Level 3) Order 2020 do impinge on a person’s movements, but still allow for a wide range of activity. Business, services and workplaces that have the relevant infection measures in place can be accessed. Outdoor exercise and recreation can be engaged in and bubbles arrangements extended within certain limits. The appellants’ liberty has not been restrained for the purposes of the Act.
Even if they were detained, the Crown would not have to establish that the detention was lawful as habeas corpus is not the appropriate procedure for considering the appellants’ allegations. An expedited application for judicial review should be made to resolve the complex legal questions at issue in this case.
Issue: Did the High Court err when it declined applications for interim name suppression by the appellants in relation to their proceedings?
Held: No. The concerns raised by the appellants are not sufficient to displace the principle of open justice. To enable an appeal to the Supreme Court on this point, interim name suppression can continue until 4.00 pm on 8 May 2020 or such other time as the Supreme Court may determine