Version as at 6 November 2021 (b) Crimes Act 1961 Part 3 s 29 the court or other person issuing the warrant had no jurisdiction to issue it, or exceeded its or his or her jurisdiction in issuing it, in the particular case. Compare: 1908 No 32 s 47 Section 27: amended, on 1 June 2005, by section 206 of the Corrections Act 2004 (2004 No 50). 28 Sentence or process without jurisdiction (1) Every officer, prison manager, or person executing any sentence, process, or warrant, and every person lawfully assisting him or her, shall be protected from criminal responsibility if— (2) (a) he or she acts in good faith under the belief that the sentence or process was that of a court having jurisdiction, or, as the case may be, that the warrant was that of a court, Justice, Community Magistrate, or other per‐ son having authority to issue warrants; and (b) it is proved that the person passing the sentence or issuing the process acted as such a court under colour of having some appointment or com‐ mission lawfully authorising him or her to act as such a court, or, as the case may require, that the person issuing the warrant acted as a Justice, Community Magistrate, or other person having authority to do so. This section shall apply notwithstanding that, in fact,— (a) any such appointment or commission as aforesaid did not exist or had expired; or (b) the court or the person passing the sentence or issuing the process was not the court or the person authorised by the appointment or commission to act; or (c) the person issuing the warrant was not duly authorised to issue it. Compare: 1908 No 32 s 48 Section 28(1): amended, on 1 June 2005, by section 206 of the Corrections Act 2004 (2004 No 50). Section 28(1)(a): amended, on 30 June 1998, by section 3(a) of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) 1998 (1998 No 79). Section 28(1)(b): amended, on 30 June 1998, by section 3(b) of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 2) 1998 (1998 No 79). 29 Irregular warrant or process (1) Every one acting under a warrant or process that is bad in law on account of some defect in substance or in form, apparent on the face of it, shall be protec‐ ted from criminal responsibility to the same extent and subject to the same pro‐ visions as if the warrant or process were good in law if in good faith and with‐ out culpable ignorance or negligence he or she believed that the warrant or process was good in law; and ignorance of the law shall in this case be an excuse. 43