New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public protection orders

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2023

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v WAITI [2023] NZHC 2310

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2310
Court

High Court

On provisional evaluation the respondent met the s13(2) behavioural criteria and posed a very high risk of imminent serious violent offending such that an IDO was justified. However, the court was not satisfied that detention in prison was justified because Matawhāiti is a purpose-built, more controlled residence with systems and trained staff capable of managing the risk and it had not been shown that all less restrictive options had been tried; accordingly the IDO was made to detain the respondent at Matawhāiti commencing on his release date.
21 Dec 2022

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PORI [2022] NZHC 3581

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3581
Court

High Court

The court was satisfied on the evidence that the respondent posed such an unacceptably high risk to staff and other residents at Matawhāiti that he could not be safely managed there, that all less restrictive options had been considered and tried (including forensic/mental health routes which were not viable), and that, after careful scrutiny and on the strong justification required by Chisnall and NZBORA, a prison detention order under s85 was necessary and lawful; accordingly the order was made.
26 Aug 2022

CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZCA 402 [26 August 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZCA 402
Court

Court of Appeal

Having considered the statutory framework, expert evidence and admissible updating material from the PPO review process, the Court concluded an IM ESO (with intensive monitoring) is a sufficient and less intrusive means to manage the appellant's risk; therefore the PPO was not necessary, must be cancelled, and the ESO application remitted to the High Court for determination with an interim supervision order imposed pending that hearing.
29 Mar 2022

DOUGLAS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 600

Citation

[2022] NZHC 600
Court

High Court

The former Matawhāiti Residence policy was ultra vires because it misconstrued s 26 by equating 'humanitarian reasons' with 'exceptional reasons', thereby precluding the Chief Executive or delegate from meaningfully exercising the statutory discretion to grant leave for community activities; a declaration to that effect was issued.
22 Feb 2022

CHISNALL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (NO 2) [2022] NZCA 24

Citation

(2022) 13 HRNZ 107
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court concluded that Part 1A of the Parole Act 2002 and the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 are inconsistent with s26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 because they permit deprivations of liberty without the requisite safeguards, and those inconsistencies are not justified under s5, warranting formal declarations of inconsistency.
27 Jan 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CHISNALL [2021] NZHC 32 [27 January 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 32
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the Court was satisfied that the respondent exhibits each s13(2) characteristic to a high level and, based on actuarial instruments, clinical assessments and case history, poses a very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending if left unsupervised; an ESO with intensive monitoring would not adequately mitigate that risk given limited treatment gains and practical risks (absconding, loss of gains); accordingly a Public Protection Order under s13(1) was made and brought into immediate effect.
22 Sept 2020

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MCCORKINDALE [2020] NZHC 2484

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2484
Court

High Court

The respondent meets the s13 threshold for a PPO, but the court concluded the 2016 Extended Supervision Order with the Parole Board's 2017 special conditions placing him at Salisbury Street Foundation constitutes a lawful, adequate, and least restrictive alternative: the conditions amount to a reintegration programme with necessary supervision rather than unlawful intensive monitoring, the wording of the care condition should be reviewed but is not fatal, the respondent's informed consent and expert evidence support community placement, and therefore a PPO is declined.
25 May 2020

DOUGLAS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 1107

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1107
Court

High Court

Leave under s17 was declined because the applicant failed to produce new or materially different evidence capable of supporting a finding that the very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending no longer exists; the review panel and earlier judicial decision had already considered the same issues and the recent reports do not show the required change in s13(2)(c) or imminence to justify court review.
30 Oct 2019

DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v McCORKINDALE [2019] NZHC 2771

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2771
Court

High Court

The court held there is no jurisdiction to use s107(3) of the Public Safety Act to suspend an interim detention order in order to impose an alternative 24/7 intensive supervision regime that cannot lawfully be imposed under the Parole Act; reliance on consent is legally inadequate and the IDO must therefore remain in full force pending determination of the PPO application.
24 Oct 2019

CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZCA 510 [23 October 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZCA 510
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the statutory threshold for a PPO (very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending and severe behavioural disturbance) was established on the evidence, the High Court erred in the exercise of its discretion by making a PPO without adequate opportunity to assess whether an ESO with an intensive monitoring condition (a less restrictive alternative) could realistically manage the risk; because the terms of any ESO and monitoring were not sufficiently specified the PPO could not be justified and must be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration; the interim detention order…