THACKER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 3287

THACKER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 3287

Applicant failed to demonstrate that interim orders were necessary to preserve his position; the reliefs sought would improve his position and pre-empt operational management decisions rather than preserve a status quo, and positive mandatory orders were not appropriate on these facts; interim application dismissed.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 3287
Parties
Applicant: Jim David Thacker; First Respondent: Attorney-General (on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections); Second Respondent: Visiting Justice at Auckland Prison
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (interim Application) / Interim Hearing Under S 15 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
Outcome
Application for interim orders dismissed
Legal Topics
Interim Relief, Directed Segregation, Solitary Confinement (mandela Rules), Association and Visiting Rights (corrections Act S73), AVL (audio Visual Link) Access, Prison Management and Privileges, Judicial Review Procedure Act S15
Administrative Law Corrections / Prison Law Human Rights Law Criminal Procedure Interim Relief Directed Segregation Solitary Confinement (mandela Rules) Association and Visiting Rights (corrections Act S73) +3 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jim David Thacker

Applicant

Attorney-General (on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections)

First Respondent

Visiting Justice at Auckland Prison

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (interim Application) / Interim Hearing Under S 15 Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim orders under s 15 JRPA could be made to preserve applicant's position
  2. 2 Whether the orders sought would preserve the applicant's position or improperly improve it
  3. 3 Whether positive/mandatory interim orders are permissible and appropriate in this context

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to demonstrate that interim orders were necessary to preserve his position; the reliefs sought would improve his position and pre-empt operational management decisions rather than preserve a status quo, and positive mandatory orders were not appropriate on these facts; interim application dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim orders dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim orders dismissed
  • Costs reserved