WILSON v THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2977

WILSON v THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2977

Leave granted to amend and pursue a focused judicial review claim that challenges the lawfulness of the Department's decisions concerning provision and withdrawal from rehabilitation programmes under Corrections Act s52; all other causes of action pleaded (defamation, Privacy Act, NZBORA standalone damages claims, battery, strip search, negligence, alleged torture and separate proceedings seeking large damages) disclosed no reasonably arguable case and were struck out, with costs reserved.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2977
Parties
Plaintiff: Ivan James Wilson; First Respondent / Defendant: The Department of Corrections; Second Respondent: Sandra Poff; Third Respondent: Alex Green; Fourth Respondent: Gill Roper; Fifth Respondent: John Savin; Sixth Respondent: Gillian Cross; Seventh Respondent: Marvin Dennison; Eighth Respondent: Office of the Ombudsman; Ninth Respondent: Office of Human Rights Proceedings; Tenth Respondent: The Psychologists Board
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review With Associated Tort and Statutory Claims (defamation, Negligence, Alleged Torture) / Strike Out Applications Heard; Leave to Amend Granted for Core Judicial Review Claim; Multiple Causes Struck Out; Timetable Directed for Trial
Outcome
Leave to amend granted for focused judicial review in CIV-2017-485-872 concerning rehabilitative programmes; other causes in CIV-2017-485-872 struck out and respondents 2–10 removed; CIV-2017-485-160 and CIV-2017-485-987 struck out in their entirety; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Rehabilitation Programmes, Preventive Detention, Strike Out Procedure, Qualified Privilege, NZBORA Breaches, Parole Requirements, Privacy Act Obligations
Administrative Law Judicial Review Corrections Law Human Rights Law Tort Law Defamation Law Privacy Law Rehabilitation Programmes +6 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan James Wilson

Plaintiff

The Department of Corrections

First Respondent / Defendant

Sandra Poff

Second Respondent

Alex Green

Third Respondent

Gill Roper

Fourth Respondent

John Savin

Fifth Respondent

Gillian Cross

Sixth Respondent

Marvin Dennison

Seventh Respondent

Office of the Ombudsman

Eighth Respondent

Office of Human Rights Proceedings

Ninth Respondent

The Psychologists Board

Tenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review With Associated Tort and Statutory Claims (defamation, Negligence, Alleged Torture) / Strike Out Applications Heard; Leave to Amend Granted for Core Judicial Review Claim; Multiple Causes Struck Out; Timetable Directed for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleaded claims disclose reasonably arguable causes of action
  2. 2 Whether strike-out applications are appropriate in judicial review context
  3. 3 Whether Corrections Act s52 gives rise to duty to provide rehabilitative programmes for those serving preventive detention

Ratio Decidendi

Leave granted to amend and pursue a focused judicial review claim that challenges the lawfulness of the Department's decisions concerning provision and withdrawal from rehabilitation programmes under Corrections Act s52; all other causes of action pleaded (defamation, Privacy Act, NZBORA standalone damages claims, battery, strip search, negligence, alleged torture and separate proceedings seeking large damages) disclosed no reasonably arguable case and were struck out, with costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted for focused judicial review in CIV-2017-485-872 concerning rehabilitative programmes; other causes in CIV-2017-485-872 struck out and respondents 2–10 removed; CIV-2017-485-160 and CIV-2017-485-987 struck out in their entirety; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Leave granted to amend statement of claim in CIV-2017-485-872 to advance judicial review of decisions about rehabilitation programmes under Corrections Act s52
  • Claims against second to tenth respondents in CIV-2017-485-872 struck out so first respondent (Department of Corrections) remains sole respondent to that proceeding