TRANTER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & ANOR [2019] NZHC 921

TRANTER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & ANOR [2019]NZHC 921 [30 April 2019]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2019-485-156[2019] NZHC 921BETWEEN DAVID TRANTERApplicantAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSFirst RespondentTHE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT,DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSSecond RespondentOn the papers:Counsel: Applicant in personJudgment: 30 April 2019JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J[1] On 14 March 2019, Mr Tranter filed in the High Court at Wellington adocument headed "Submission for Judicial Review". That document expressedMr Tranter's concerns that the Department of Corrections had, in the past, used adevice called a "Plinth Machine" and that the results from this machine had, in thepast, been incorporated into reports submitted to the Courts in relation to prisonerssuch as himself.[2] The Registrar referred the proceedings to me pursuant to High Court Rule5.35A on the basis that, because they did not set out an identifiable legal cause ofaction they, on their face, are an abuse of the process of Court.[3] On 28 March 2019, I issued a minute making the following orders underHCR 5.35B:(a) these proceedings be stayed until further order of the Court;(b) the documents filed by the applicant not be served but be kept by theCourt until the stay is lifted; and(c) if the applicant wishes to continue with these proceedings, an amendedstatement of claim is to be filed within 21 days which identifies thespecific statutory power decision which is said to have been exercisedand seeks relief of the type available in an application for judicialreview.[4] The applicant subsequently filed by email what was said to be a response tothe minute. However, this document was not in the form of an amended statement ofclaim specifying the particular decisions said to be unlawful and neither did it seekrelief of the type available in proceedings for judicial review.[5] The second respondent was still identified as "The Psychology Department,Department of Corrections" notwithstanding the Court, in the minute of 28 March2019, indicating that a party to a proceeding must be a legal entity and that ThePsychology Department had no different legal personality to the Department ofCorrections.[6] Given that the applicant has been unwilling or unable to file an amendedstatement of claim identifying a specific decision which he seeks judicial review ofand setting out relief of the type available to the Court in judicial review proceedings,I am satisfied that these proceedings are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.[7] Accordingly, pursuant to HCR 5.35B(2)(a), I strike these proceedings out.[8] I direct that a copy of this decision be served on the Department of Corrections.I also advise the applicant of his right to appeal this decision.Churchman Jcc: The ApplicantDepartment of Corrections, Wellington