BRADY ERROL CHADWICK V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2008-485-2701

BRADY ERROL CHADWICK V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2008- 485-2701 1 April 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2008-485-2701BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND DefendantCIV 2008-485-2702AND BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND DefendantCIV 2008-485-2705AND BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Defendant2CIV 2008-485-2706AND BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND DefendantCIV 2008-485-2616AND BETWEEN BRADY ERROL CHADWICK Plaintiff AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND Defendant Hearing: 30 March 2009 Counsel: No Appearance for Plaintiff S McKenzie for Respondent Judgment: 1 April 2009JUDGMENT OF RONALD YOUNG J Introduction[1] Mr Chadwick, in five proceedings against the Attorney-General alleges he has been repeatedly poisoned with the sap of the euphobia plant and estrogen. He also complains chemicals have been supplied to him in the hope that he will blow himself up and the Police have attempted to run him over with a Police car. He alleges that Police, prison officers and others have assaulted him, stolen his property, conspired to have him charged with criminal offences and defamed him. He says the"time sequence and events have been manipulated" to destroy all physical evidence of a mountain bike accident he suffered. [2] Arising broadly from these events Mr Chadwick has filed civil proceedings against the Attorney-General for what he describes as attempted murder, criminal harassment, defamation, corrupt use of official information, false statements, fabricating evidence, conspiring to bring false accusations, conspiring to defeat the course of justice, blackmail, demanding with intent to steal, torture, common assault and theft. [3] Perhaps unsurprisingly the respondent in these proceedings seeks an order that I strike out each of the statements of claim as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action, being frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the process of the Court. [4] Mr Chadwick did not appear at the hearing. He has previously appeared when the defendant's strike out application has been called in Court. He, along with counsel for the Attorney-General, was sent the fixture notice for today's hearing to his nominated address for service.The Law[5] Rule 15.1 of the High Court Rules entitles the Court to dismiss or stay all or part of a proceeding. It provides:15.1 Dismissing or staying all or part of proceeding(1) The court may strike out all or part of a pleading if it— (a) discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.(2) If the court strikes out a statement of claim or a counterclaim under subclause (1), it may by the same or a subsequent order dismiss the proceeding or the counterclaim. (3) Instead of striking out all or part of a pleading under subclause (1), the court may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just. (4) This rule does not affect the court's inherent jurisdiction.[6] In Attorney-General v Prince [1998] 1 NZLR 262 the Court of Appeal identified five factors especially relevant to r 15.1(1)(a) applications. In summary, they are: a) the pleaded facts are assumed to be true unless the allegations "are entirely speculative and without foundation"; b) the cause of action must be clearly untenable; c) the jurisdiction is to be exercised only in clear cases; d) the jurisdiction is not excluded because difficult questions of law are required to be resolved; e) the Court should be slow to strike out a claim when a developing area of law is involved. [7] As to the other grounds in r 15.1 of prejudice, frivolous or vexatious pleadings or otherwise an abusive process, the Court can either stay or strike out proceedings where the allegations are scandalous and irrelevant, (see Van Der Kaapv Attorney-General (1996) 10 PRNZ 162) or where, for example, the proceedings are not a proper use of the Court process or simply filed to "vex" an opposing party.Discussion[8] With those authorities in mind I turn to the individual statements of claim. Before I do so, however, I make the general observation that all but one of the pleadings allege criminal conduct and not civil wrongs (the exception defamation). Iaccept that some of the criminal wrongs might also be civil wrongs. There is typically no identification of who the plaintiff says has committed the wrong. Much of the pleadings are difficult to understand. [9] The remedies sought are mostly, either or both a claim for three or four billion dollars worth of "uranium" for use in power stations, or economic sanctions against New Zealand for a number of years. The economic sanctions prayer appears to seek orders that this Court prohibit New Zealand selling goods overseas and importing goods other than essentials. This Court could not make such orders even if liability could be established. [10] The first proceeding filed by the plaintiff chronologically is CIV 2008-485-2616. The statement of claim alleges a series of attempts to kill Mr Chadwick as I have recorded in [1]. No attempt is made to allege any civil wrong. The focus, as the pleadings state, are on s 173 of the Crimes Act 1961 and the attempts to kill Mr Chadwick. By itself this focus in the pleadings on a criminal act rather than any civil wrong would be sufficient to strike out the proceeding as not disclosing any arguable cause of action. [11] Further, there is no attempt in the pleading to identify who, in particular, has attempted to murder the plaintiff. Although a number of Government departments are mentioned in the pleading their connection with the allegation of attempted murder is far from clear (r 5.26(b)). [12] Given the failure to identify who is trying to kill the plaintiff there is no basis identified upon which the Attorney-General is said to be responsible as defendant (r 5.26(d)). [13] There is some suggestion in the pleadings that the damages sought arise from the injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff. On the face of it such a claim would be statute barred by virtue of the s 317 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001.[14] Mr Chadwick has also filed what he describes as a "summary of allegations". Mostly the summary is a series of incoherent statements. Some individual names are mentioned however none are parties to the proceedings. Nor is the summary of allegations apparently part of the statement of claim. [15] This proceeding will be struck out. It identifies no reasonable cause of action, does not identify why the Attorney-General should be the defendant, the fundamental allegation is essentially speculative and appears to have no foundation. The remedies sought could not be granted by this Court. [16] The second proceeding, CIV 2008-485-2701, alleges criminal harassment and defamation. The sole defendant is the Attorney-General although it is not clear in what capacity the Attorney-General is sued. [17] The claim of defamation appears to arise from the allegation in the statement of claim that the New Zealand Government has "fabricated statements regarding Mr Chadwick's character". [18] There is no identification in the statement of claim as to what "statements" have been made, nor in what context, nor how they relate to Mr Chadwick's character (r 5.26(b)). Although defamation is a civil wrong there is no cause of action revealed in the pleadings, nor any proper defendant. [19] The second part of this statement of claim is said to be an allegation of criminal harassment. The pleadings allege that Mr Chadwick is being harassed by attempts to frighten him with loud noises. As a result Mr Chadwick says he has had a number of physical injuries from accidents when distracted by these loud noises. [20] Criminal harassment is not, by definition, a civil wrong. In any event, there is no identification who is making these loud noises to harass Mr Chadwick. No cause of action, therefore, is revealed in this statement of claim relating to harassment (r 5.26(b)).[21] Finally, Mr Chadwick's damages claim is for injury suffered as a result of the alleged harassment and must also be statute barred for reasons previously given [11]. [22] No reasonable cause of action is revealed by the pleadings. They will be struck out. [23] Proceeding CIV 2008-485-2702 involves a number of allegations seemingly arising from a complaint by Mr Chadwick that he was wrongly prosecuted by the Police and wrongly held in custody. [24] The statement of claim alleges the Police conspired with a department store security officer to falsify a charge of dishonest conduct by Mr Chadwick. In prison, Mr Chadwick alleges that he was assaulted by a Corrections Officer and had his property stolen and his food poisoned. [25] Finally, Mr Chadwick alleges attempts have been made to commit him under the Mental Health Act 1969, which he alleges is a way of imprisoning him without trial. [26] Most of these allegations are of criminal misconduct. Some though could be allegations of a civil wrong (the allegations could be a complaint of false imprisonment). However, none of the allegations are developed into any form of recognisable cause of action, nor are the alleged wrong-doers identified as defendants (r 5.26(b)). The pleadings do not support any basis to identify why the Attorney-General is the proper defendant (r 5.26(d)). Given there is no reasonably arguable cause of action, these proceedings should be struck out. [27] In CIV 2008-485-2705 the plaintiff alleges he has been tortured by the New Zealand Government. [28] The allegations of torture seem to arise from complaints by Mr Chadwick that a number of people around the streets have tried to trip him up as he has walked by. Torture is also said to have arisen from his false imprisonment and other attempts to imprison him and poison him.[29] There is no identification of who tried to trip him up, nor how this might be "torture". As to his imprisonment he does not identify where or how he was falsely imprisoned, nor who was and in what circumstances trying to poison him (r 5.26(b)). In addition, the damages sought appear to be for personal injury which are prohibited as I have previously identified [11]. [30] The proceedings, therefore, disclose no reasonably arguable cause of action, nor any coherent defendant, nor do they (adequately) identify details which would enable a defendant to plead in response to the allegations. They will be struck out. [31] Finally, CIV 2008-485-2706 alleges assault and theft. This statement of claim says the plaintiff "suspects" an unnamed prison guard assaulted him. He also alleges a camp stove and sleeping bag was stolen from him when he was in Rimutaka Prison. [32] These allegations, as they are framed, are allegations of criminal conduct, that is of assault and theft. They do not allege any civil wrong although they could do so. They identify no perpetrator of either alleged conduct (r 5.26(b)). The relief sought includes a prayer that the Police charge an unknown person with, as I understand it, assault and theft. [33] There is no coherent cause of action identified, the alleged wrong-doer is not the defendant and is unclear why the Attorney-General is being sued (r 5.26(d)). The relief sought is outside the power of this Court to order. For those reasons, this statement of claim is also struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. [34] I note portions of the statements of claim are incoherent and thus impossible to follow. Some of the claims involve incredible allegations, for example, that the Government is able to manipulate time and the integrity of the physical world. [35] Finally with many of the statements of claim there is attached what the plaintiff calls a summary of his submissions. They are essentially a form of brief of evidence of the plaintiff containing the "evidence" he considers supports his pleadings. They add nothing to the statements of claim other than confusion. Theycontain material that is difficult to understand and at times seems to bear no relationship to the particular allegations in the statement of claim they are said to support. [36] I have considered whether I should allow Mr Chadwick time to try to amend these claims to see if he can identify a coherent civil action from the many allegations. I am not prepared to do so. The statements of claim bears little relationship to an understandable civil claim with; no properly identified allegations; no identified defendants who allegedly have committed a civil wrong; nor a properly constituted damages claim. Giving the plaintiff further time would only delay the inevitable. All five statements of claim are struck out.Costs[37] I fix costs on a 2B basis with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. ___________________________ Ronald Young JSolicitors: B E Chadwick, Downtown Community Ministry, PO Box 6133, Wellington S McKenzie, Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, Wellington email: sarah.mckenzie@crownlaw.govt.nz