HARRIMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR CA463/2013 [2013] NZCA 674

HARRIMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR CA463/2013 [2013] NZCA 674 [19 December 2013]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA463/2013[2013] NZCA 674BETWEEN ALLEN LOUIS HARRIMANAppellantAND ATTORNEY-GENERALFirst RespondentNEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARDSecond RespondentCounsel: Appellant in personC A Griffin and L M Inverarity for First RespondentF M R Cooke QC for Second RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)19 December 2013 at 10.30 amJUDGMENT OF FRENCH J(Review of Registrar's DecisionRe Dispensing with Payment of Security for Costs)The application for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to dispense withthe payment of security for costs is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONSIntroduction[1] Mr Harriman has filed an appeal against a decision of Goddard J.1 In thedecision, Goddard J dismissed Mr Harriman's application for judicial review of theactions of the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Parole Board.1 Harriman v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 1516.[2] On 30 July 2013 security for costs on the appeal was set at $11,760.[3] Mr Harriman then applied for security to be dispensed with under r 35(6)(c) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The Registrar held that there was nothing in the appeal of public importance or significance and that the circumstances of the appeal could not be considered exceptional. She accordingly decided it was not an appropriate case for dispensation and advised Mr Harriman accordingly in a letter dated 20 September 2013.[4] Dissatisfied with that outcome, Mr Harriman sought a review of theRegistrar's decision under r 7(2). He has subsequently paid the full amount of the security, but on the basis that he still seeks review and a refund should the review be successful. The Attorney-General opposes dispensation being granted. The Parole Board abides the decision of the Court.Grounds for review[5] Mr Harriman contends the Registrar was wrong to find the appeal is not exceptional and lacks public importance. He submits the appeal is exceptional because of factual and procedural errors that have occurred on the part of the Department of Corrections, the Parole Board and the High Court. He further submits the appeal raises important issues of statutory interpretation and important constitutional issues and is arguable. Reliance is also placed on impecuniosity.Discussion[6] Mr Harriman is a serving prisoner. He has been considered for parole by the Parole Board on three occasions. Parole was refused on each occasion, the relevant dates being 17 January 2012, 7 August 2012 and 17 July 2013.[7] The High Court decision that Mr Harriman is seeking to impugn on appeal relates only to the January 2012 decision. The key findings made by Goddard J were essentially case specific and not of any general importance. Further, the findings also concur with findings made by Judge Mahoney in an earlier unsuccessful review of the same decision brought by Mr Harriman under s 67 of the Parole Act 2002. Interms of the merits of the appeal, Mr Harriman faces the further difficulties of there having been two subsequent Parole Board decisions also denying him parole2 as well as the ongoing lack of a release plan. The merits of the appeal appear very weak.[8] As for impecuniosity, that is obviously an important consideration because of access to justice issues. But impecuniosity is not determinative. Also important is the principle that a respondent should not have to face the risk of a hopeless appeal without provision for security. In any event, Mr Harriman has paid the security.[9] In my view, there is no reason justifying departure from the normal rule thatappellants must pay security for costs. I accordingly uphold the Registrar's decision.Outcome[10] The application for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to dispensewith the payment of security for costs is dismissed.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent2 This Court has previously stated that, in the parole context, judicial review is unlikely to be warranted where alleged errors have been overtaken by subsequent decisions; see for exampleMiller v New Zealand Parole Board [2010] NZCA 600.