R (SC 64/2022) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZSC 31
The Court granted leave to appeal and framed the dispositive legal question: courts must consider NZBORA when exercising discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order for a person subject to a Compulsory Care Order, and the proper approach to that interplay is a matter for full appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZSC 31
- Parties
- Applicant: R (SC 64/2022); Respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 April 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Leave Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted and question for full appeal approved
- Legal Topics
- Extended Supervision Order, Compulsory Care Order, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Renewal Discretion
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
R (SC 64/2022)
Applicant
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 How does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court's discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
Ratio Decidendi
The Court granted leave to appeal and framed the dispositive legal question: courts must consider NZBORA when exercising discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order for a person subject to a Compulsory Care Order, and the proper approach to that interplay is a matter for full appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted and question for full appeal approved
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225).
- The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court's discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R (SC 64/2022) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZSC 31 [11April 2023]NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION ORIDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PROHIBITED BY S 201 OFTHE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AND PURSUANT TO SS 107RAAND 107G OF THE PAROLE ACT 2002. SEEhttp://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/0081/latest/DLM3360347.htmlIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 64/2022[2023] NZSC 31BETWEEN R (SC 64/2022)ApplicantAND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THEDEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRespondentCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJCounsel: A J Ellis and G K Edgeler for ApplicantB C L Charmley for RespondentJudgment: 11 April 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v ChiefExecutive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA225).B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Billof Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court'sdiscretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order whenthe individual concerned is also subject to a CompulsoryCare Order?____________________________________________________________________Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent