3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies

Case Summary

This was an Application for relief by way of habeas corpus, reviewed by Justice Henderson. His Lordship identified a potential issue in the Application, as it did not appear to challenge an existing deprivation of liberty or a deprivation of residual liberty, whereas habeas corpus is only relevant to current and ongoing detention. His Lordship underscored that habeas corpus does not provide relief to a hypothetical future detention or to historic detentions. Justice Henderson identified that the Applicant had not indicated that he was currently being illegally detained.

Justice Henderson determined that the Application had a basis for review pursuant to Civil Practice Note No 7. His Lordship ordered that the Applicant had 14 days to provide written submissions to the Court to show why the Application should not be struck pursuant to Rule 3.68. Specifically, His Lordship solicited written submissions regarding: (1) what was the existing detention or loss of residual liberty that the Applicant alleged was illegal and; (2) how habeas corpus may apply when the decision that is being challenged as illegal results in an increase in personal liberty.

His Lordship explained that if no written submission were received by the deadline, the Court would proceed to render its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part pursuant to Rule 3.68. If the Applicant provided the written submission, then the Respondent had 7 days to provide a written reply. Thereafter, the Court would render its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68.

View CanLII Details