MILLER AND ANOR V THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2004-485-1460

MILLER AND ANOR V THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD AND ANOR HC WN CIV 2004-485-1460

The Court dismissed all claims. The Parole Board is an independent statutory body under the Parole Act but is not required to possess the full institutional independence of a court for ICCPR art 9(4) purposes; statutory appointment, support, operational and remuneration provisions are lawful; asserted systemic defects (appointments, training, structured decision making, executive council, guides, dissent policy, HRX and treatment timing) did not establish unlawful lack of independence or breaches warranting relief; individual challenges to parole and recall decisions failed on the facts or were spent; costs reserved.

Citation
openlaw-824cde15_5efe_4b70_a636_0bb686f06229.pdf
Parties
First Applicant: Allan Brian Miller; Second Applicant: Michael John Carroll; First Respondent: The New Zealand Parole Board; Second Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review, Declarations and Applications for Release/recall / Judgment (reserved and Delivered 16 December 2008)
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Parole Board Independence, Preventive Detention, Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions, Appointments and Remuneration of Statutory Members, Rehabilitation and Treatment of Offenders, Recall and Interim Recall Procedures, BORA and ICCPR Compliance
Administrative Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Corrections/prison Law Constitutional Law Parole Board Independence Preventive Detention Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Allan Brian Miller

First Applicant

Michael John Carroll

Second Applicant

The New Zealand Parole Board

First Respondent

The Attorney General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review, Declarations and Applications for Release/recall / Judgment (reserved and Delivered 16 December 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Parole Board must have the full independence of a court for ICCPR art 9(4)/BORA s27 purposes
  2. 2 Lawfulness of appointment processes and tenure of Parole Board members
  3. 3 Whether administrative support from Corrections compromises Board independence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed all claims. The Parole Board is an independent statutory body under the Parole Act but is not required to possess the full institutional independence of a court for ICCPR art 9(4) purposes; statutory appointment, support, operational and remuneration provisions are lawful; asserted systemic defects (appointments, training, structured decision making, executive council, guides, dissent policy, HRX and treatment timing) did not establish unlawful lack of independence or breaches warranting relief; individual challenges to parole and recall decisions failed on the facts or were spent; costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Proceedings dismissed
  • Costs reserved