[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Massey v Governor of HM Prison Liverpool & Anor [2011] EWHC 2270 (Admin) (26 August 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2270.html Cite as: [2011] EWHC 2270 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
		26/08/2011

Mr Justice Wyn Williams :

1. On 25 August I heard an application from the Claimant for a writ of habeas corpus. At the conclusion of the hearing I announced that the application was refused and that my reasons for this decision would be given in writing and handed down at the Royal Courts of Justice on 26 August 2011. These are my written reasons for my refusal of the application for habeas corpus.

History of proceedings

2. The application for habeas corpus was made by a claim form issued on 12 August 2011. I was asked to consider the claim and supporting papers as a matter of some urgency and on 15 August 2011 I made an order specifying that there should be a directions hearing on 18 August 2011. I directed that the Claimant should appear at that hearing by video link since it seemed to me to be the efficacious way of ensuring that a meaningful hearing took place on 18 August.
3. On 18 August 2011 the directions hearing took place before me. The Claimant appeared by video link. I was addressed by the Claimant and by his McKenzie friend. At the conclusion of the hearing I directed that the application for habeas corpus should be heard on 25 August 2011; that the Claimant should, again, appear by video link and that the proceedings should be served not just upon the Governor of HMP Liverpool but also that the Secretary of State for Justice should be served.
4. At the hearing on 25 August 2011 I was addressed by the Claimant. I was also addressed by his McKenzie friend. Ms Lambert appeared to represent the Defendants and she confirmed to me that the defence to these proceedings was that the Claimant had been committed to prison lawfully following his conviction and sentence for the offence of assaulting a constable in the execution of her duty.
5. The key document provided on behalf of the First Defendant was a copy of a warrant for custodial sentence signed by the clerk to the Wirral Magistrates' Court. That showed that on the 27^th day of July 2011 a District Judge sitting at the Magistrates' Court had sentenced the Claimant to a term of 16 weeks' imprisonment following his conviction for assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty.
6. The basis of the claim brought by the Claimant appeared to be that he had not given his consent to the proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and that such consent was necessary. Further, he seemed to assert that his consent was necessary for a term of imprisonment to be imposed. His McKenzie friend sought to challenge the basis of my jurisdiction. He also sought to criticise the behaviour of police officers who had been involved in the incident giving rise to the arrest of the Claimant and his subsequent remand and appearance in court.
7. I have no doubt that this claim is entirely hopeless. I am satisfied, completely, that the Claimant was convicted by a competent court of a criminal offence and that the sentence imposed upon the Claimant was entirely lawful. In those circumstances there can be no basis for the grant of the writ of habeas corpus.
8. This Claimant has appealed against his conviction; he told me that he had not appealed against his sentence although, no doubt, sentence will be at large when the appeal against conviction is heard in the Crown Court. The appeal is due to be heard on 1 September 2011. I am entirely satisfied that the Crown Court on appeal is the correct forum to determine whether or not the Claimant's conviction should stand or be quashed. It is not open to this court on an application for habeas corpus to consider whether or not the Claimant's conviction should stand or be quashed.