New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directed segregation

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2023

GORGUS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 2097

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2097
Court

High Court

Defendants were the overall successful party; a 25% reduction in costs was appropriate to reflect the plaintiff's limited, conceded success; the defendants' Calderbank offer was not considered because the plaintiff did not receive it; impecuniosity and asserted public interest did not justify refusing or reducing costs further; lay litigant rules preclude costs for the interlocutory application absent exceptional circumstances; therefore costs were awarded to defendants on a 2B basis totaling $28,431.50.
20 Jul 2023

JIM DAVID THACKER, Prisoner, of Auckland v ATTORNEY-GENERAL, sued for and on behalf of the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Wellington [2023] NZHC 1901

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1901
Court

High Court

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.
4 May 2023

STEVENS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & OR [2023] NZHC 1051

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1051
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review application, holding the prison director and the Chief Executive's delegate acted within the statutory powers in ss58–60 of the Corrections Act 2004, there was probative evidence to support the segregation and its extensions, no material error of law or breach of natural justice was established, and reliance on on‑site staff assessments did not amount to unlawful abdication of discretion.
9 Mar 2023

GORGUS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 450 [9 March 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 450
Court

High Court

The segregation decision was lawful as a non-punitive, evidence-based prisoner management measure justified by security risks; procedural failures (delay in providing segregation paperwork and forwarding revocation request to a Visiting Justice) breached NZBORA s27 and warrant a declaratory remedy; detention conditions did not breach s23(5) or statutory minimum entitlements; no fresh private law duty of care or actionable negligence was established and damages were not appropriate.
8 Dec 2022

THACKER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 3287

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3287
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate that interim orders were necessary to preserve his position; the reliefs sought would improve his position and pre-empt operational management decisions rather than preserve a status quo, and positive mandatory orders were not appropriate on these facts; interim application dismissed.
30 Nov 2022

STEVENS v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 3167

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3167
Court

High Court

Leave to cross-examine the deponent Ms Dayle McKibbon was granted because the Prison Director, who made the challenged decisions, was incapacitated and unavailable to provide evidence, making the deponent's recommendations and reasons central to testing the lawfulness and reasonableness of the segregation orders; cross-examination was limited, tightly focused on identified factual disputes linked to pleaded grounds, and subject to strict time and case-management directions.
20 Oct 2022

CHENG v AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONS FACILITY (SERCO) [2022] NZHC 2701

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2701
Court

High Court

The interlocutory applications (strike out and security for costs) are to be treated as genuine interlocutory matters and must be heard separately; the plaintiffs will not suffer material prejudice from this course, the defendants' cost concerns are reasonable and the applications can be determined within one day to efficiently manage and potentially narrow the extensive claims.
27 Jun 2022

HURITU AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1500

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1500
Court

High Court

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.
28 Jun 2021

REREKURA v PRISON DIRECTOR, AUCKLAND SOUTH CORRECTIONS FACILITY (SERCO) [2021] NZHC 1555

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1555
Court

High Court

Application to act as McKenzie friend was declined because Cheng is a likely witness, creating an unacceptable conflict of roles and practical limitations (exclusion during cross-examination), there is a real risk of abuse of process given his parallel litigation and public interest activism, and logistical and taxpayer burdens; application to be joined as a party was declined because Cheng lacks a direct personal interest in the relief sought, joinder is not justified under r 4.56 or JRPA s14, and the joinder would amount to an abuse of process given overlapping proceedings and duplicative c…
20 Feb 2013

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2012-404-2814

Citation

openlaw-4c5903a4_f0b9_40ec_b314_9e82e6910be9.pdf
Court

High Court

Despite procedural breaches (failure to give statutory notice of transfer and delayed written reasons, and delayed reasons for directed segregation), the transfer to Spring Hill, the security reclassification, management/support plans, directed segregation and the Visiting Justice's determinations on disciplinary charges were lawful and reasonable exercises of discretion; procedural lapses did not invalidate the substantive decisions and no remedial declarations were warranted because defects were spent and had no continuing consequence.