Massey v Governor of HM Prison Liverpool & Anor

A writ of habeas corpus is unavailable where the claimant has been convicted and sentenced lawfully by a competent criminal court. The procedure cannot be used to challenge whether the conviction should stand or be quashed. Such issues must be determined by the appropriate criminal appeal court. A purported requirement that the defendant consent to criminal proceedings or imprisonment provides no basis for habeas corpus.

The claimant applied for a writ of habeas corpus after being sentenced by a District Judge at the Wirral Magistrates’ Court to 16 weeks’ imprisonment for assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty.

He argued that he had not consented to the magistrates’ court proceedings or to imprisonment. His McKenzie friend also challenged the court’s jurisdiction and criticised the conduct of police officers. The claimant had appealed against his conviction to the Crown Court, where the appeal was due to be heard. The issue was whether habeas corpus could be used to obtain his release or to challenge the conviction.

1. Application refused. The court refused the claimant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
2. The warrant for custodial sentence showed that, on 27 July 2011, a District Judge at the Wirral Magistrates’ Court had convicted the claimant of assaulting a police officer in the execution of her duty and sentenced him to 16 weeks’ imprisonment.
3. The claimant had been convicted by a competent court and the sentence imposed was lawful. His asserted lack of consent to the criminal proceedings, and to the imposition of imprisonment, did not affect the validity of the conviction or sentence.
4. Habeas corpus could not be used to determine whether the conviction should stand or be quashed. The Crown Court, hearing the claimant’s appeal against conviction, was the correct forum for that issue. The conviction appeal was due to be heard on 1 September 2011; any challenge to sentence could also be addressed in that appellate context.