17 Nov 2023
On the evidence the plaintiff did not prove the alleged solitary confinement, torture, or breaches of statutory duties or negligence: minor issues (temporary lack of suitable breakfast and sleep disruption due to welfare checks and unfamiliarity) did not meet legal thresholds for liability under s9 BORA, Corrections Act or tort; claim dismissed.
20 Jul 2023
The High Court dismissed the application: the directed segregation decisions were lawful exercises of power under s58 Corrections Act 2004, were justified by credible evidence of risk to security and safety, were not punitive but managerial, decision‑makers considered relevant factors including health and cultural issues, and AVL/contact denials were lawful under the Prison Operations Manual and policy given misconduct history and resource/ safety considerations; deference to correctional operational judgments was appropriate.
27 Jun 2022
The adjournment was granted because, on balance, the interests of justice required vacating the September 2022 three-week fixture: pleadings and discovery were not settled or complete, the civil proceedings risked prejudicing the plaintiffs' parallel criminal trials and vice versa, the nominated September claims were not truly representative and would not dispose of the litigation leading to inefficiency and risk of inconsistent decisions, and the plaintiffs' claims for past damages were not sufficiently urgent to outweigh these considerations.
13 Oct 2020
Applicant raised a serious question to be tried but mandatory interim relief compelling daily outdoor exercise could not be granted on the present pleadings and evidence because of jurisdictional limits on orders against the Crown under JRPA s15(3), lack of pleaded precision, and the need to preserve day-to-day management discretion where s69(2) exceptions may apply; accordingly the interim injunction application was dismissed and a prioritized substantive hearing directed.
1 Jun 2018
Because the applicant's detention follows a valid conviction and sentence, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy to challenge either the conviction or the conditions of detention; challenges to solitary confinement and related conditions should be pursued by judicial review, and therefore the habeas corpus application must be dismissed.
7 Nov 2013
The Court held the Visiting Justice exceeded statutory authority by imposing 21 days' cell confinement contrary to s33(3)(g); that the unlawful additional confinement on a vulnerable prisoner breached the Crown's positive duty under s23(5) NZBORA (lack of humanity and respect for dignity), but the treatment did not meet the threshold for breach of s9; regulatory breaches were made but not causative of the s23(5) breach; damages were precluded by the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act; declaratory relief and costs were appropriate.
24 Feb 2012
Court found the 21 day sentence exceeded statutory power by six days but was imposed at the applicant's express request and served without evidence of material medical or managerial harm; technical breaches of regulations (failure to notify doctors, possible lapses in superintendent visits) did not amount to breaches of ss 9 or 23(5) NZBORA; declarations and compensation were refused and declaratory relief was unnecessary in the circumstances.