MCGREEVY v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2006

MCGREEVY v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 2006

Monitoring and accompaniment during defined programme hours is lawful provided the monitoring or restrictions do not exceed what is necessary to ensure attendance and participation in programme activities as required by s107K(3)(bb); there was insufficient evidence to find continuous 24/7 unlawful monitoring after 2012, but the absence of a documented reintegration programme raising doubt as to whether current accompaniment/monitoring is justified requires the Department to refer the programme conditions back to the Parole Board for review and reconsideration; declarations of illegality and NZBORA breaches were declined and the residence challenge failed.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2006
Parties
Applicant: Patrick John McGreevy; First Respondent: Chief Executive of Department of Corrections; Second Respondent: New Zealand Parole Board; Third Respondent: CRC Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Applicant's application for declarations that the Department and CRC acted illegally or breached NZBORA dismissed; residence consent challenge dismissed; Department directed to refer reintegration programme conditions back to Parole Board for review and reconsideration; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Extended Supervision Order, Electronic Monitoring (gps), Monitoring and Accompaniment, Programme Conditions, Residence and Consent Under S34, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Implications
Criminal Law Administrative Law Corrections Law Human Rights Law Parole Law Extended Supervision Order Electronic Monitoring (gps) Monitoring and Accompaniment +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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick John McGreevy

Applicant

Chief Executive of Department of Corrections

First Respondent

New Zealand Parole Board

Second Respondent

CRC Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment on Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether monitoring and accompaniment of the applicant exceeded statutory limits and was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the programme condition under s15(3)(b)/s16 authorised continuous personal monitoring or was a device to achieve effective 24/7 surveillance
  3. 3 Whether the content and implementation of the reintegration programme met statutory requirements for rehabilitation and reintegration

Ratio Decidendi

Monitoring and accompaniment during defined programme hours is lawful provided the monitoring or restrictions do not exceed what is necessary to ensure attendance and participation in programme activities as required by s107K(3)(bb); there was insufficient evidence to find continuous 24/7 unlawful monitoring after 2012, but the absence of a documented reintegration programme raising doubt as to whether current accompaniment/monitoring is justified requires the Department to refer the programme conditions back to the Parole Board for review and reconsideration; declarations of illegality and NZBORA breaches were declined and the residence challenge failed.

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for declarations that the Department and CRC acted illegally or breached NZBORA dismissed; residence consent challenge dismissed; Department directed to refer reintegration programme conditions back to Parole Board for review and reconsideration; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Declined declarations that the Department and CRC acted illegally or unreasonably or breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
  • Declined order quashing Parole Board conditions or declaring continuous 24/7 monitoring unlawful on the evidence before the Court