New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public protection order

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2021

C v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2021] NZHC 2567

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2567
Court

High Court

Court held: (1) Corrections breached s107K(3)(bb)(ii) by placing applicant at Spring Hill where the approved agency (AA) both operated the residence and provided his programme, meaning applicant effectively resided with his programme provider; (2) applicant was arbitrarily and unlawfully detained under s22 NZBORA after residential restrictions expired (18 May 2017) because Corrections and agencies required he not leave Spring Hill unless accompanied by mentors, producing a substantial and unjustified restraint on freedom of movement over a prolonged period; (3) the Parole Board condition of 1…
22 Sept 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PORI [2021] NZHC 2501

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2501
Court

High Court

The judge held the applicant's contemporaneous evidence of the respondent's marked behavioural deterioration, threats, property damage and unsuccessful de‑escalation measures met the s85(2) criteria and justified making an interim prison detention order under s74(5) to manage the unacceptable risk while the s85 application is determined.
3 Sept 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PORI [2021] NZHC 2305

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2305
Court

High Court

Respondent satisfies s13(1) and s13(2) behavioural criteria and poses a very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending; no less restrictive legal option is adequate because respondent's condition is not amenable to treatment, no existing forensic mental health facility can safely and effectively manage him without recreating Matawhāiti's restrictive environment, therefore s12 direction is declined and a PPO is required and made to protect public safety.
25 Jun 2020

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v PORI [2020] NZHC 1446 [25 June 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1446
Court

High Court

On the provisional evidence the respondent met the s7 eligibility and s13 behavioural criteria and posed a very high and imminent risk of serious sexual offending; less restrictive options must be considered and tried before ordering prison detention; Matawhāiti had not been tried and was ordered as the appropriate location for the interim detention order starting 25 June 2020; the court directed consideration of mental health or intellectual disability statutory applications and listed the substantive PPO for further hearing on 3 August 2020.
21 Dec 2018

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v R [2018] NZHC 3455

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3455
Court

High Court

The court held the proposed alternative of enforceable 24/7 care based on the respondent's consent was not presently lawfully enforceable and too uncertain to mitigate the very high risk; accordingly the court directed under s12 that the Chief Executive consider an application under s29 of the IDCCR, the interim protection order remains in place, and publication of identifying details is suppressed.
21 Nov 2018

MCCORKINDALE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZCA 512

Citation

[2018] NZCA 512
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted because the appellant promptly initiated appeal proceedings, delay was due to counsel error and administrative fee matters beyond the appellant's personal control, the respondent identified no prejudice, and the appeal raised important liberty and public interest issues; on that basis the interests of justice required granting the extension.
1 Jun 2018

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CAMPBELL [2018] NZHC 1280

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1280
Court

High Court

On the evidence, notably the health assessor's report, the Court was satisfied that each s 107IAA criterion was met and that Campbell has or had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual offending and presents a high risk of committing relevant sexual offences; a 10 year ESO is the minimum period required for community safety within the statutory maximum and an intensive monitoring condition for 12 months is appropriate and lawful.
14 Dec 2017

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CHISNALL [2017] NZHC 3120

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3120
Court

High Court

The Court found the s7 threshold was met, respondent was not eligible for detention under the Intellectual Disability Act or Mental Health Act, the four characteristics in s13(2) were each established by evidence to a high level, and on the balance of probabilities there is a very high risk of imminent serious sexual offending if the respondent is left unsupervised; given the enduring nature and magnitude of the risk and limits of less intrusive ESO measures (notably the temporariness of intensive monitoring), the discretion under s13(1) was properly exercised to make a Public Protection Orde…
14 Feb 2017

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v CAMPBELL [2017] NZHC 147

Citation

[2017] NZHC 147
Court

High Court

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to impose the special intensive monitoring condition sought under the Parole Act because only the Parole Board can impose special conditions and the Court may only order intensive monitoring when imposing an extended supervision order; accordingly the Court could not make the requested order and the substantive proceedings were adjourned with an agreed interim monitoring arrangement until the hearing date.
13 Feb 2017

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KERR [2017] NZHC 139

Citation

[2017] NZHC 139
Court

High Court

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to impose the special intensive monitoring condition on an existing extended supervision order; only the Parole Board can impose special conditions but it cannot itself impose intensive monitoring without a High Court order and the High Court may make that order only when simultaneously imposing an extended supervision order, therefore the Court adjourned the applications and declined to impose the proposed special conditions at this stage.