PETERS v THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [2022] NZHC 2718
Because the respondent accepted that issuing the s4 Trespass Act warning via s26(2) was unreasonable and irrational and that it unjustifiably limited s18 NZBORA freedom of movement, declarations to that effect were appropriate and granted by consent; the warning was withdrawn.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 2718
- Parties
- Applicant: Winston Peters; Respondent: The Speaker of the House of Representatives
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 October 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Judgment (on the Papers, Consent)
- Outcome
- Declarations granted by consent that the respondent's exercise of s26(2) to issue a s4 Trespass Act 1980 warning was unreasonable and irrational and that the warning unjustifiably limited s18 NZBORA; warning withdrawn; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Unreasonableness, Freedom of Movement (s18 Nzbora), Trespass Warnings, Parliamentary Services Act S26
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Winston Peters
Applicant
The Speaker of the House of Representatives
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment (on the Papers, Consent)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's exercise of s26(2) Parliamentary Services Act 2000 to issue a s4 Trespass Act 1980 warning was unreasonable and irrational
- 2 Whether the warning constituted an unjustified limitation on the applicant's right to freedom of movement under s18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
- 3 Whether declarations and relief were appropriate given respondent's acceptance and withdrawal of the warning
Ratio Decidendi
Because the respondent accepted that issuing the s4 Trespass Act warning via s26(2) was unreasonable and irrational and that it unjustifiably limited s18 NZBORA freedom of movement, declarations to that effect were appropriate and granted by consent; the warning was withdrawn.
Court Disposition
Declarations granted by consent that the respondent's exercise of s26(2) to issue a s4 Trespass Act 1980 warning was unreasonable and irrational and that the warning unjustifiably limited s18 NZBORA; warning withdrawn; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Declaration that the respondent's exercise of the power under s26(2) of the Parliamentary Services Act 2000 to issue the applicant a warning under s4 of the Trespass Act 1980 was unreasonable and irrational.
- Declaration that the warning from the respondent was an unjustified limitation on the applicant's right to freedom of movement under s18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PETERS v THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES [2022] NZHC 2718 [19 October 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV-2022-485-346[2022] NZHC 2718BETWEEN WINSTON PETERSApplicantAND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVESRespondentOn the PapersCounsel: A F Pilditch KC and D C S Morris for the ApplicantS V McKechnie and T J Bremner for the RespondentJudgment: 19 October 2022JUDGMENT OF GWYN J[1] By his statement of claim for judicial review dated 27 June 2022, the applicant,Winston Peters, has brought claims against the respondent, the previous Speaker ofthe New Zealand House of Representatives, under the Judicial Review Procedure Act2016 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2] The claims arise out of a protest on the grounds of Parliament, beginning on8 February 2022 and ending on 2 March 2022, when the New Zealand Police removedthe protestors from the parliamentary precincts. On 22 February 2022, the applicantwent to the grounds of Parliament, within the parliamentary precincts, and spoke toindividual protestors.[3] The Speaker of the House of Representatives is responsible, under s 26 of theParliamentary Services Act 2000, for the control and administration of theparliamentary precincts on behalf of the House of Representatives.[4] On 30 March 2022 the respondent determined to issue warnings under s 4 ofthe Trespass Act 1980 (the Act) to protestors who were known to have remained withinthe parliamentary precincts after warnings had been given to them under s 3 of theAct.[5] On 28 April 2022 a warning under s 4 of the Act was served on the applicant(the warning). The effect of the warning was that the applicant was prohibited fromentering Parliament grounds for the statutory maximum period of two years.[6] On or about 4 May 2022, the respondent determined that the applicant nolonger posed "a risk to the safety and security of others at Parliament" and the warningwas withdrawn.[7] The respondent accepts that the exercise of the power under s 26(2) of theParliamentary Service Act 2000 to issue the applicant the warning under s 4 of the Actwas unreasonable and irrational.[8] The respondent also accepts that the warning was an unjustified limitation onthe applicant's right to freedom of movement under s 18 of the New Zealand Bill ofRights Act 1990.[9] The respondent agrees to the making of declarations to that effect.Orders[10] By consent, judgment is given for the applicant on the following terms:(a) A declaration that the respondent's exercise of the power under s 26(2)of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 to issue the applicant a warningunder s 4 of the Trespass Act 1980 was unreasonable and irrational.(b) A declaration that the warning from the respondent was an unjustifiedlimitation on the applicant's right to freedom of movement under s 18of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[11] No order as to costs is sought.[12] On the issue of this judgment, the applicant will abandon the first and thirdcauses of action in the statement of claim (as they relate to sections 14, 16 and 17 ofthe New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990).Gwyn JSolicitors:Simpson Grierson, WellingtonCook Morris Quinn, Auckland