FORREST v THE VISITING JUSTICE, RIMUTAKA PRISON [2014] NZHC 634

FORREST v THE VISITING JUSTICE, RIMUTAKA PRISON [2014] NZHC 634

The interim application was declined because the Judge was not satisfied that an order preventing the applicant's return was necessary to preserve his position under s8 given that judicial review could reverse the classification and thus render the relief effective, and because it was unclear that s8 extends to the mandatory transfer order sought.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 634
Parties
Applicant: Brendon Douglas Forrest; First Respondent: The Visiting Justice, Rimutaka Prison; Second Respondent: The Department of Corrections
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and NZBORA Claim / Interlocutory/urgent Telephone Hearing on Application for Interim Relief; Amended Statement of Claim Filed
Outcome
Interlocutory application for an order preventing return to Auckland Prison declined.
Legal Topics
Security Classification, Prison Disciplinary Process, Natural Justice, Interim Relief Under S8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972, NZBORA S27 Allegation
Administrative Law Human Rights Corrections Law Criminal Procedure Security Classification Prison Disciplinary Process Natural Justice Interim Relief Under S8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendon Douglas Forrest

Applicant

The Visiting Justice, Rimutaka Prison

First Respondent

The Department of Corrections

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and NZBORA Claim / Interlocutory/urgent Telephone Hearing on Application for Interim Relief; Amended Statement of Claim Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim order preventing the applicant's return to Auckland Prison was necessary to preserve his position under s8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's NZBORA s27 and natural justice rights were breached by the security reclassification and disciplinary processes
  3. 3 Whether s8 empowers the Court to grant the mandatory transfer relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

The interim application was declined because the Judge was not satisfied that an order preventing the applicant's return was necessary to preserve his position under s8 given that judicial review could reverse the classification and thus render the relief effective, and because it was unclear that s8 extends to the mandatory transfer order sought.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application for an order preventing return to Auckland Prison declined.

Orders

  • Interlocutory application declined.
  • Once the respondent files its statement of defence, the judicial review application should be set down for hearing as soon as possible.