THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MARTIN [2016] NZHC 947
The court clarified that the Rotorua‑boundary condition does not preclude the respondent from driving and deleted the phrase 'or enter into any licensed premises' from the special condition because it was overbroad; the interim supervision order otherwise remains in force until the reserved judgment on the extended...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 947
- Parties
- Applicant: The Chief Executive, Department of Corrections; Respondent: James Timi Martin
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 10 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extended Supervision Order (criminal/post‑sentence) / Interim Supervision Order in Force; Hearing Held; Reserved Judgment Pending
- Outcome
- Partial variation of interim supervision order: deletion of overbroad phrase and clarification of scope; interim order otherwise to remain in force until reserved judgment.
- Legal Topics
- Extended Supervision Order, Interim Supervision Order, Special Conditions of Supervision, Interpretation of Supervision Conditions, Licensed Premises Restriction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
The Chief Executive, Department of Corrections
Applicant
James Timi Martin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Extended Supervision Order (criminal/post‑sentence) / Interim Supervision Order in Force; Hearing Held; Reserved Judgment Pending
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a condition prohibiting approach to Rotorua precludes driving
- 2 Whether the prohibition on entering licensed premises is overly broad and should be deleted
Ratio Decidendi
The court clarified that the Rotorua‑boundary condition does not preclude the respondent from driving and deleted the phrase 'or enter into any licensed premises' from the special condition because it was overbroad; the interim supervision order otherwise remains in force until the reserved judgment on the extended supervision order application is released.
Court Disposition
Partial variation of interim supervision order: deletion of overbroad phrase and clarification of scope; interim order otherwise to remain in force until reserved judgment.
Orders
- Delete the words 'or enter into any licensed premises' from Special Condition (i) of the interim supervision order.
- Interim supervision order to remain in place until the reserved judgment on the Department's application for an extended supervision order is released.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MARTIN [2016] NZHC 947 [10 May 2016]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCRI-2015-404-000285[2016] NZHC 947BETWEEN THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE,DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSApplicantAND JAMES TIMI MARTINRespondentHearing: 10 May 2016Appearances: D Dufty for ApplicantA Prasad and J Grainger for RespondentJudgment: 10 May 2016ORAL JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J[1] The Department of Corrections has made application for an extended supervision order in respect of Mr Martin.[2] Mr Martin is currently subject to an interim supervision order which was made by Davison J on 29 February 2016. There are various special conditions on that order.[3] Inter alia it requires that Mr Martin not approach or enter the city boundaries of Rotorua without the prior written consent of a probation officer and then only on such conditions as may be stipulated.[4] Mr Martin has advised through his counsel that the probation officer is taking the view that that condition precludes Mr Martin from driving.[5] Mr Martin is currently employed as a driver. It is clear that that condition does not preclude Mr Martin from driving. Mr Martin is free to drive. It simply precludes him from approaching or entering the city boundaries of Rotorua withoutthe consent of a probation officer. I record this to make it clear beyond peradventure and for the benefit of the Probation Service.[6] Condition (i) requires that Mr Martin is not to possess or consume alcohol, take illicit drugs, or enter into any licensed premises.[7] Mr Martin, through his counsel, takes the point that licensed premises include restaurants, cafes and many theatres. Mr Martin objects to the imposition of that part of the condition. He has no difficulty with the requirement that he is not to possess or consume alcohol or take illicit drugs. Mr Dufty, for the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, does not oppose the words "or enter into any licensedpremises" being deleted from the special condition attaching to the interim supervision order. I make an order accordingly.[8] I record that the interim supervision order is to remain in place until my reserved judgment on the Department's application for an extended supervisionorder is released. It will then either be replaced by any extended supervision order I make or it will lapse because no extended supervision order is being made._____________________________Wylie JSolicitors:Crown Solicitor, AucklandPublic Defence Service, Auckland