NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98
The application for recall was dismissed because none of the arguments advanced provided fresh or compelling grounds to disturb the earlier judgment: the Court had considered the alleged torture and related High Court findings, there was no substantive inconsistency with Siemer v Heron, the finding that the wrongful...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZSC 98
- Parties
- Applicant: Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie; First Respondent: Attorney-General; Respondent: Department of Corrections; Respondent: Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 30 July 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Recall of Supreme Court Judgment Concerning Security for Costs and Related Appeals / Supreme Court Judgment on Application for Recall (final Disposition)
- Outcome
- Application for recall dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Recall of Judgment, Wrongful Detention, Allegations of Torture, Role of Registrar
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie
Applicant
Attorney-General
First Respondent
Department of Corrections
Respondent
Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Recall of Supreme Court Judgment Concerning Security for Costs and Related Appeals / Supreme Court Judgment on Application for Recall (final Disposition)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court judgment of 29 May 2014 should be recalled
- 2 Whether allegations of torture were ignored by the Court
- 3 Whether there was an inconsistency between the practice under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and the approach in Siemer v Heron
Ratio Decidendi
The application for recall was dismissed because none of the arguments advanced provided fresh or compelling grounds to disturb the earlier judgment: the Court had considered the alleged torture and related High Court findings, there was no substantive inconsistency with Siemer v Heron, the finding that the wrongful detention claim was arguable but caused no detriment was justified on the facts, and the broader procedural and Registrar-related challenges added nothing new.
Court Disposition
Application for recall dismissed
Orders
- The application for recall is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98 [30 July 2014]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 47/2013[2014] NZSC 98BETWEEN NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIEApplicantAND ATTORNEY-GENERALFirst RespondentDISTRICT COURT AT WAITAKERESecond RespondentSC 102/2013BETWEEN NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIEApplicantAND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSAND VISITING JUSTICE TO SPRINGHILL CORRECTIONAL FACILITYRespondentsCourt: Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJCounsel: Applicant in personC R Gwyn and J Foster for Respondents on 27 November 2013C R Gwyn and R D Garden for Respondents on 5 December2013A S Butler and O C Gascoigne as Amicus CuriaeJudgment: 30 July 2014JUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for recall is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Reekie seeks a recall of the judgment delivered on 29 May 2014 dismissing an appeal and an application for leave to appeal in respect of decisionsmade by single judges of the Court of Appeal as to security for costs.1 The application is based on a mix of particular and general challenges to the judgment.[2] We see none of the arguments advanced as warranting recall of the judgment.[3] The allegations of torture were not ignored as the conduct said to amount to torture was referred to, as were the associated findings of fact made in the High Court. The Court noted the apparent inconsistency between the practice which obtained before the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 and the approach taken inSiemer v Heron.2 There was no inconsistency between the conclusion that the wrongful detention claim was arguable and the conclusion that Mr Reekie had suffered no detriment because if all issues had been appropriately addressed, he would have remained in custody for the relevant period.[4] The more general challenges (to the difficulties identified by the Court as to the role of the Registrar, the general principles set out in the judgment and the engagement by the Court with the merits of the appeals to the Court of Appeal) raise nothing new.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents1 Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.2 Siemer v Heron [2012] NZSC 91.