New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parole board procedure

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2022

GREEN v THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2022] NZHC 693

Citation

[2022] NZHC 693
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the Parole Act permits the Board to receive victim submissions and restorative justice material, the Board did not place weight on the contested victim statement, it lawfully considered psychological reports and legitimately relied on the applicant's continued denial and lack of treatment as grounds to find he remained an undue risk; the decisions were open to a reasonable decision-maker and not unlawfully made.
20 Sept 2007

TEINA V CUSTODIAL SERVICES, AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5783

Citation

openlaw-2d93d361_24b2_4018_b592_0d8f27def240.pdf
Court

High Court

Habeas corpus was inappropriate because the applicant did not challenge the legality of his detention supported by regular warrants; the complaint concerned Parole Board procedure for which statutory review under the Parole Act and, if necessary, judicial review are the proper remedies; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed but the respondent was ordered to provide the Parole Board transcript to the applicant within seven days to enable pursuit of those remedies.
5 May 2005

CAMPBELL V THE SUPERINTENDENT, WELLINGTON PRISON SC 21/2005

Citation

SC 21/2005
Court

Supreme Court

Given the particular and unusual circumstances of the rehearing, the identified irregularities were insufficient to render the Parole Board's order invalid; consequently the proposed appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance nor a substantial miscarriage of justice and leave to appeal was denied.
14 Feb 2005

CAMPBELL v PRISON CA CA3/05

Citation

openlaw-5e38e2e6_1096_4481_a673_915eaee5d9ba.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Procedural non‑compliance with s107 did not automatically render detention unlawful; s107(8) does not bar the Court from quashing an order in an appropriate case, but on the facts the irregularities were technical and insufficient to warrant quashing the Parole Board's order, so detention remained lawful; habeas corpus was an inappropriate summary vehicle where factual evaluation was required and judicial review or mandamus is the appropriate route.
26 May 2004

JASON PAUL BURKE V SUPERINTENDENT OF WELLINGTON PRISON And Ors CA CA79/03

Citation

openlaw-ee6ee692_7c6e_4acf_a86f_95cec8ce5615.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that there was no extant appeal because the appellant abandoned challenges or they were overtaken by intervening events (release and later re‑offending), that the High Court had in effect dismissed both the habeas corpus and judicial review challenges and that this Court lacked jurisdiction to make declarations or entertain collateral complaints about the High Court judge's conduct; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

GREEN v THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2022] NZHC 693

TEINA V CUSTODIAL SERVICES, AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5783

CAMPBELL V THE SUPERINTENDENT, WELLINGTON PRISON SC 21/2005

CAMPBELL v PRISON CA CA3/05

JASON PAUL BURKE V SUPERINTENDENT OF WELLINGTON PRISON And Ors CA CA79/03