Majority
before us but as to which I do not find it necessary to express an opinion.
I would grant the motion to quash. The respondent is entitled to the costs of the motion.
Judgment of the Court
.
J.:-This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, originally made before Spence J. and referred by him to the Court pursuant to Rule 72. The application is made in writing and the applicant did not appear and was not represented by counsel.
It appears from the certificate of sentence that the applicant was tried in the Supreme Court of British Columbia before Hutcheson J. and a jury on the following counts:
that he was convicted on all four counts and, on February 1, 1963, was sentenced on each of counts (1) and (2) to four years imprisonment in the penitentiary and on each of counts (3) and (4) to two years imprisonment in the penitentiary, the four sentences to run concurrently. It appears therefore that the applicant is confined pursuant to convictions made and sentences imposed by a Court of competent criminal jurisdiction. The certificate of conviction is valid on its face. The reasons for judgment delivered in this Court in Goldhar v. The Queen' and the authorities therein discussed, make it clear that in these circumstances no relief can be afforded to the applicant by way of habeas corpus.
It follows that the application for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed and I would so order.
Application dismissed.