TAYLOR v MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV-2011-404-006168
The court appointed counsel to assist the Court because the plaintiff's restricted access to legal resources (as evidenced by his prison management plan) created a real risk that the substantive public law challenge could not be fairly and adequately presented without experienced public law counsel, and there was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-faf74af7_5a6a_48a4_b3c8_237e62908519.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Arthur William Taylor; Defendant: Manager of Auckland Prison
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 31 May 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Declaratory Judgment Under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 / Interlocutory (applications for Appointment of Counsel and for Audio Visual Participation)
- Outcome
- Counsel to assist the Court appointed.
- Legal Topics
- Legality of Prison Rule Forbidding Smoking, Declaratory Relief, Appointment of Counsel to Assist the Court, Audio Visual Participation of Prisoner, Access to Legal Materials and Procedural Fairness
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arthur William Taylor
Plaintiff
Manager of Auckland Prison
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Judgment Under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 / Interlocutory (applications for Appointment of Counsel and for Audio Visual Participation)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Manager's rule banning smoking and possession of tobacco by prisoners at Auckland Prison is lawful
- 2 Whether counsel should be appointed to assist the Court given the plaintiff's restricted access to legal resources
- 3 Whether the plaintiff should participate in the substantive hearing by audio-visual link
Ratio Decidendi
The court appointed counsel to assist the Court because the plaintiff's restricted access to legal resources (as evidenced by his prison management plan) created a real risk that the substantive public law challenge could not be fairly and adequately presented without experienced public law counsel, and there was insufficient time to await the plan before allowing counsel time to prepare.
Court Disposition
Counsel to assist the Court appointed.
Orders
- Counsel to assist the Court is appointed and must have experience in public law litigation.
- The substantive hearing is listed for 11 June 2012.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TAYLOR v MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV-2011-404-006168 [31 May 2012]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2011-404-006168[2012] NZHC 1204UNDER the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908IN THE MATTER OF of an application for a declaration that arule promulgated by the Manager ofAuckland Prison forbidding any prisoner tosmoke or possess tobacco is unlawfulBETWEEN ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLORPlaintiffAND THE MANAGER OF AUCKLANDPRISONDefendantHearing: 17 May 2012Counsel: C J Tennet for the PlaintiffG J Robins for the DefendantM Reddy for the Department of CorrectionsJudgment: 31 May 2012RESULT JUDGMENT OF DUFFY JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Duffyon 31 May 2012 at 11.00 am, pursuant tor 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 1 June 2011, the defendant, the Manager of the Auckland Prison, instituted a rule forbidding any prisoner at Auckland Prison from smoking tobacco or any other substance, or having in their possession any tobacco or tobacco related item on Auckland Prison property. The plaintiff, Mr Taylor, who is an inmate of Auckland Prison, commenced this proceeding challenging the legality of this rule.[2] There are two interlocutory applications before me for determination. One is brought by the defendant. He seeks an order that Mr Taylor, who will be representing himself at the substantive hearing of this proceeding, participate in the hearing by audio-visual link. The other is brought by Mr Taylor, who seeks the appointment of counsel to assist the Court.[3] During the course of the hearing, Mr Taylor brought to my attention his prison management plan, which restricts his access to computers and the library. He could not give me a copy of the plan, as he was attending the hearing by audio-visual link.[4] I asked the defendant to provide me with a copy of the plan. To date, I have not received it.[5] I considered the plan had some relevance to the decision on the appointment of counsel to assist the Court. For this reason, I had delayed delivering a judgment until I received a copy of the plan. However, the hearing is on 11 June 2012. I can no longer wait to receive this document. If counsel is appointed, that counsel will need time to prepare for the hearing. I have decided, therefore, to proceed to deal with the application to appoint counsel.[6] To expedite matters, I intend to provide a result only judgment today, with reasons to follow, which will be delivered when I deliver the judgment on thedefendant's application.[7] I have decided that counsel to assist the Court should be appointed. The person appointed will be required to have experience in public law litigation.Duffy JCounsel: C J Tennet P O Box 12456 Thorndon Wellington 6140 for the PlaintiffSolicitors: Crown Law P O Box 2858 Wellington 6140 for the DefendantCopies To: Department of Corrections Private Bag 1206 Wellington 6140Hickey Law (J P Hickey) P O Box 100802 North Shore Auckland 0745A W Taylor Private Bag 50124 Albany North Shore Auckland 0752Media Works 3 News TV Works Ltd (A Harley, Chief of Staff, C Bradley, Legal Counsel; M Morrah, Journalist) Private Bag 92624 Symonds Street Auckland 1150