GENGE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 172

GENGE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 172

The Court held there was no evidence the April 2018 reassessment was retaliatory; any scoring error was inadvertent and rectified by statutory reconsideration under s 48; however Corrections initially relied impermissibly on behavioural factors already accounted for in the security classification when refusing to return the prisoner to low-medium accommodation contrary to reg 44(2), warranting a declaratory remedy; the refusal of voluntary segregation and any alleged denial of exercise were lawful because segregation lacked supporting information and the prisoner voluntarily declined offered recreation.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 172
Parties
Applicant: Richard Genge; First Respondent: Chief Executive, Department of Corrections; Second Respondent: Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (high Court)
Outcome
Application dismissed except for a declaratory relief; declaration made; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Security Classification, Segregation, Statutory Entitlements to Recreation, Judicial Review, Remedies, Regulatory Interpretation
Corrections Law Administrative Law Prison Law Security Classification Segregation Statutory Entitlements to Recreation Judicial Review Remedies +1 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Genge

Applicant

Chief Executive, Department of Corrections

First Respondent

Attorney-General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether April 2018 security reassessment was motivated by retaliation or otherwise unlawful
  2. 2 Whether failure to return prisoner to low-medium unit after reconsideration breached reg 44(2)
  3. 3 Whether refusal to grant voluntary segregation was reviewable error

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held there was no evidence the April 2018 reassessment was retaliatory; any scoring error was inadvertent and rectified by statutory reconsideration under s 48; however Corrections initially relied impermissibly on behavioural factors already accounted for in the security classification when refusing to return the prisoner to low-medium accommodation contrary to reg 44(2), warranting a declaratory remedy; the refusal of voluntary segregation and any alleged denial of exercise were lawful because segregation lacked supporting information and the prisoner voluntarily declined offered recreation.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed except for a declaratory relief; declaration made; costs reserved

Orders

  • Declaration: The first respondent erred in having regard to the appellant's behavioural issues as a matter warranting non-compliance with the requirements of reg 44, as these had already been considered and taken into account when determining his security classification.
  • No compensation awarded to applicant.