2 Aug 2022
The unless order operated automatically upon non‑compliance; because no formal application for relief was made in the District Court supported by evidence the High Court lacked jurisdiction to overturn the automatic dismissal and could not exercise residual discretion on a purported appeal; therefore the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Apr 2022
Court found no NZBORA breach: relevant ESR/Police material was disclosed in the ordinary course once requested, ESR lawfully refrained from using or stating databank comparisons absent an admissible suspect sample (CIBSA s71), prosecutor's conduct did not amount to abuse of process and detention was not arbitrary; plaintiff's NZBORA damages claim dismissed.
22 Dec 2021
The Court held the appellant was arbitrarily detained after the passive breath test because the s114 LTA purpose had been exhausted and the officer's request to exit the vehicle (without informing he was free to leave) objectively gave rise to a reasonable belief he was not free to go; however the evidence from the subsequent s20 warrantless search was not excluded under s30 because the breach was brief, minor, not in bad faith, was connected to bona fide safety and drug-suspicion factors, and admission was not disproportionate to the impropriety.
4 May 2021
Band C was appropriate for commencement given the extensive file and complexity, and a 50% uplift to scale costs was warranted because the proceeding was of general importance, involved substantial work to vindicate a BORA right (arbitrary detention), and counsel's efforts were necessary to secure the applicant's release; therefore the costs claimed in counsel's memorandum of 19 February 2021 and agreed disbursements were ordered.
15 Dec 2020
The Parole Board erred in law and reached unreasonable decisions by treating the applicant as an 'undue risk' without adequate assessment of the likelihood, nature and seriousness of future offending in light of his advanced dementia; the applicant's continued detention became disproportionate and arbitrary in breach of s 22 NZBORA (at least from 21 August 2018); the Board's 19 August 2019 decision is set aside and the Court ordered the applicant's release to appropriate external care within a time-limited period unless suitable secure care is located sooner.
28 Jul 2020
No implied public law duty was declared because Parliament has expressly provided for rehabilitation in s 52 of the Corrections Act; s 52 confers a discretionary, conditional duty to provide rehabilitative programmes subject to resources and instruction under s 196; on the facts Corrections reasonably exercised its s 52 obligations and did not arbitrarily detain the plaintiff nor breach s 23(5) or s 27 BORA; relief sought was refused.
27 Jul 2020
The Court dismissed the appeal: the High Court correctly found on the facts and law that the statutory regimes and clinical practices were lawful and did not breach NZBORA or give rise to arbitrary detention; CRPD and CAT obligations cannot override clear domestic statutory authorisations; specific complaints (litigation guardian, sexual policy, absence of s148 guidelines, s130 delegation, s76 reviews, s31(4) direction, failure to inform of rights, second opinions) were either unsupported by evidence or legally untenable.
13 May 2020
The High Court held there was no breach of ss 22 or 23 BORA: the appellant was informed of her right to consult a lawyer repeatedly, had the opportunity to and declined to consult counsel, and the detention and testing procedures were lawful under the Land Transport Act; consequently the blood result was not improperly obtained under s30 and was admissible. The appeal was dismissed.
19 Dec 2019
Limitation Acts do not directly bar Baigent claims but courts will be guided by limitation concepts by analogy; the unlawfulness of detention here was not reasonably discoverable before the Supreme Court's decision in Booth v R (2016), the plaintiff filed promptly after that correction of the law, the delay did not prejudice the defence, and therefore the Court in the exercise of its discretion awarded Baigent damages of $15,030 and declined interest.
18 Dec 2019
Appeal dismissed and judicial review dismissed: arrest was lawful because objectively the officer had good cause to suspect Prescott was obstructing police in the execution of duty (s 23 Summary Offences Act) even though s 116 LTA did not apply on the facts; reasons for arrest were given, detention length was not arbitrary, right to counsel was offered, and allegations of judicial bias and tampering were not established.