HARTLEY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 131

HARTLEY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 131 [11February 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2018-485-680[2020] NZHC 131UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990BETWEEN PETER JOHN HARTLEYPlaintiffAND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSDefendantTeleconference: 10 February 2020Appearances: S J Fraser for the ApplicantA Powell for the DefendantJudgment: 11 February 2020JUDGMENT OF COOKE J[1] The plaintiff, Mr Peter Hartley has advanced various claims against thedefendant under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The claims are fullydescribed in an amended statement of claim dated 29 April 2019.[2] The parties have now agreed to resolve the claims by the Court making adeclaration. I was initially inclined to simply make the orders the parties had agreedby consent, but the parties have asked that I record the reasons in a short judgment. Iaccept it is appropriate to do so.Relevant factual circumstances[3] The claims concern the actions of the Department of Corrections whentransporting Mr Hartley on two occasions while he was a serving inmate. First whenhe was transferred to Rimutaka Prison to Tongariro Prison on 30 November 2016, andsecondly when he was transported from Tongariro to Rimutaka Prison on14 December 2016.[4] Mr Hartley contended that his treatment on those journeys breached his rightsunder the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and he sought relief in the form ofdeclarations.[5] The defendant accepts that Mr Hartley's treatment on the two occasionsspecified breached his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.That was so because he was placed in a situation where he was forced to urinate onhimself and his clothing. In particular, the defendant accepts the plaintiff's factualascertain that during a scheduled stop on each of those journeys at Manawatu Prisonhe was not given the opportunity to use the toilet, nor were any alternativearrangements made for him.[6] The defendant agrees to the making of the declaration contemplated by thefacts set out above, and Mr Hartley agrees with the defendant that a declaratoryjudgment can be given by consent. The balance of the claims advanced by Mr Hartleywill be discontinued by the plaintiff filing a notice of discontinuance.[7] I agree that in the circumstances referred to the agreed declaration is in order.Accordingly I grant the following declaration by consent:That Mr Hartley's treatment during his transportation by the defendant on30 November 2016 and 14 December 2016 was in breach of s 23(5) of theNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[8] It is also agreed that there be no order as to costs.Cooke JSolicitors:John Miller Law, Wellington for ApplicantCrown Law, Wellington for Respondents