Rayne v HM Prison Strangeways Manchester

A writ of habeas corpus is not ordinarily available to challenge the merits of a conviction or sentence imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction where an effective appeal lies. Exceptional use may be justified only where an appeal cannot put the matter right. Procedural defects in a committal order do not make detention unlawful where they caused no prejudice or injustice. Alleged defects in an arrest warrant do not require determination where the warrant and its re-issues were procedurally regular. The application for leave to issue a writ was therefore refused.

The claimant applied for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Geoffrey Harold Scriven, who was detained in HM Prison Strangeways Manchester following a county court committal for contempt. The contempt arose from his refusal to enter the witness box and answer questions at an adjourned public examination in bankruptcy.

The application challenged the underlying conviction, the absence of personal service of the committal hearing, the alleged misunderstanding of the hearing’s purpose, defects in the committal order and arrest warrant, and the applicant’s standing to proceed in Ms Rayne’s name. The central issue was whether those matters went to the lawfulness of the detention or had to be pursued by appeal.

1. Disposition. The application for leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus was refused. Mr Justice Gage agreed with the judgment of Mr Justice Keith.
2. Proper remedy. The complaints that Mr Scriven should not have been convicted of contempt, including the alleged lack of personal service and the disputed purpose of the hearing, were challenges to the committal decision. They were matters for an appeal to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal under Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 13(2)(b), rather than for habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not ordinarily used to challenge a lawful sentence imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Exceptional circumstances might arise if an appeal could not put the matter right, but that exception was not established because the Court of Appeal could set aside the finding of contempt if the grounds succeeded.
3. Procedural objections. The county court had used Forms N79 and N80, the forms used for committal orders and arrest warrants in that court. The absence of a judge’s signature did not invalidate the documents; the committal form appeared to bear Judge Howarth’s initials. The court also found no applicable time limit governing execution or re-issue of the warrant. The re-issues merely accommodated changes of address and were administrative.
4. Effect of defects. Applying Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314, procedural defects in a committal order do not justify setting it aside where they caused no prejudice or injustice. The court knew of no principle making detention unlawful for defects of that kind. It was unnecessary to decide whether defects in an arrest warrant could have that effect, because no such irregularity had occurred.
5. Other objections. There was no rule preventing the Official Receiver from bringing contempt proceedings merely because an unresolved allegation of contempt had been made against him. Personal service of the committal hearing was sufficient, and the committal could be made in the alleged contemnor’s absence. The court also expressed the provisional view that the order declaring Mr Scriven a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 did not prevent an application for habeas corpus where detention was not disputed.

First-instance application before the Divisional Court of the High Court. The court refused leave to issue a writ of habeas corpus. It indicated that challenges to the committal order should be pursued, if appropriate, in the Court of Appeal.