New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk assessment and management

Legal area

Court

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.
4 Feb 2022

DEPT OF CORRECTIONS v PALMER [2022] NZHC 137

Citation

[2022] NZHC 137
Court

High Court

An ESO was warranted and limited to three years commencing 5 February 2022 because expert assessments and agreed evidence established a present risk of serious sexual reoffending that would, if the offender complied in the community for three years, be likely to reduce to a level not requiring further supervision; the parties and experts agreed three years was sufficient.
22 Mar 2019

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MATAROA BARTON [2019] NZHC 544

Citation

[2019] NZHC 544
Court

High Court

Although the respondent met the statutory thresholds for a PPO (including severe disturbance characteristics), the Court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that, if managed under his existing ESO with intensive monitoring at Spring Hill Village, he posed a very high risk of imminently committing a serious sexual offence over the short interval until the PPO hearing; because a less restrictive regime could reduce the opportunity to reoffend, an IDO was not justified and was refused.
20 Jul 2018

R v RAHMAN [2018] NZHC 1808

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1808
Court

High Court

An order detaining the defendant as a special patient under s 24(2)(a) was necessary because the balance of probabilities supported that she caused the act forming the basis of the charge, she poses ongoing and significant risks to others and herself, her combined intellectual disability and mental disorder create complex treatment needs best met in a secure hospital setting with coordinated forensic psychiatric and intellectual disability services and statutory oversight, and the necessity threshold for a s 24(2) order was therefore satisfied.

New Zealand Case Law

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

DEPT OF CORRECTIONS v PALMER [2022] NZHC 137

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v MATAROA BARTON [2019] NZHC 544

R v RAHMAN [2018] NZHC 1808