TAUNOA AND ORS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR SC 6/2006
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to three approved grounds — alleged breaches of s9 NZBORA, alleged breaches of s27 NZBORA, and the appropriateness and quantum of compensation — declined to grant leave for separate claims based solely on international conventions and the Standard Minimum Rules,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- TAUNOA AND ORS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR SC 6/2006
- Parties
- Appellant and Cross Respondent: Christopher Hapimana Ben Mark Taunoa; Appellants: Others (Appellants); Respondent: The Attorney-General; Respondent: Anor
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 12 April 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted; Matter Remitted for Hearing on Approved Grounds
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on the specified limited grounds
- Legal Topics
- New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 S9, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 S27, Compensation Remedies for Rights Breaches, Prisoner Treatment and Standards
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Christopher Hapimana Ben Mark Taunoa
Appellant and Cross Respondent
Others (Appellants)
Appellants
The Attorney-General
Respondent
Anor
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal (leave to Appeal) / Leave to Appeal Granted; Matter Remitted for Hearing on Approved Grounds
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether appellants suffered breaches of s9 NZBORA (cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment)
- 2 Whether appellants were denied natural justice in breach of s27 NZBORA
- 3 Whether awards of compensation to certain appellants were appropriate remedies and whether quantum was properly assessed
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to three approved grounds — alleged breaches of s9 NZBORA, alleged breaches of s27 NZBORA, and the appropriateness and quantum of compensation — declined to grant leave for separate claims based solely on international conventions and the Standard Minimum Rules, reserved consideration of the Crown's 'failure to investigate' pleading point for the hearing if necessary, and refused to hear arguments under the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 because that statute post‑dates the Court of Appeal hearing.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on the specified limited grounds
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on both applications
- Approved grounds: (1) breaches of s9 NZBORA, (2) breaches of s27 NZBORA, (3) appropriateness and quantum of compensation to specified appellants
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TAUNOA AND ORS V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR SC 6/2006 12 April 2006IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 6/2006 [2006] NZSC 30BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER HAPIMANA BEN MARK TAUNOA AND ORS Appellants and Cross-Respondent AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR Respondents Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ Counsel: T Ellis and D La Hood for Appellants and Cross-Respondent T Arnold QC and B Keith for Respondents Judgment: 12 April 2006JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A. Leave to appeal is granted on both applications. B. The approved grounds are: (1) Whether there were breaches of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment) in relation to the four appellants. (2) Whether there were breaches of s 27 of that Act (denial of natural justice) in relation to those appellants. (3) Whether the awards of compensation to the first, second and fourth appellants and the cross-respondent were appropriate as a remedy for breach of their rights and, if so, whether the quantum of each award was properly assessed. (The determination on this ground will have regard to the determinations on grounds 1 and 2 as well as to the breaches which have already been found.)REASONS[1] Leave has not been granted on issues raised separately by counsel for the appellants concerning international conventions and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. These issues may be relevant to the establishment of the Bill of Rights breaches but do not give rise to separate claims. [2] The Crown pleading point concerning the "failure to investigate" argument will be considered, if necessary, at the hearing. [3] The Court will not hear any argument concerning the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 and the tribunal established thereunder since the enactment of that legislation post-dates the hearing in the Court of Appeal and the claims made in this proceeding were therefore not addressed to it.Solicitors: N B Dunning, Wellington for Appellants Crown Law Office, Wellington