After Bryan Latham brought two previous Applications for habeas corpus, he again applied for habeas corpus on the basis that a decision to suspend and then revoke his day parole was unreasonable and in violation of his right to procedural fairness. Mr. Latham required leave to file the new habeas corpus Application because he was subject to interim Court access restrictions, so he wrote to Chief Justice Moreau seeking permission to file the Application. The Chief Justice designated Justice Henderson to respond to the Applications. Justice Henderson held that the habeas corpus Application had potential merit and should be evaluated further.

As a preliminary issue, Justice Henderson noted that in a previous hearing in relation to Mr. Latham’s habeas corpus Application, the Respondent had been given a deadline to apply to strike out the filing under Rule 3.68. The Respondent had done so, later abandoned its Rule 3.68 Application, and a substantive habeas corpus Application occurred. Next, Henderson J. substantially considered Mr. Latham’s habeas corpus Application, and dismissed it.

Henderson J. then noted that since Mr. Latham was unsuccessful, it was presumed that he would owe Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29(1). His Lordship noted that there are a number of indicia of abusive conduct which may increase Costs following an unsuccessful habeas corpus Application, but that those indicia were not present during Mr. Latham’s Application. As such, the Court ordered that Mr. Latham pay $100 in Costs immediately. His Lordship also invited the parties to provide submissions respecting whether greater Court access restrictions should be imposed on Mr. Latham.