20 Apr 2023
The claim was struck out under r 15.1 as an abuse of process because the long delay (14–22 years) and the destruction or unavailability of contemporaneous records and the likely inability of witnesses to recall details mean the proceeding cannot be tried fairly and the defendant would be unable to meet the allegations, rendering continuation an abuse of process.
22 Sept 2021
The Court held the Visiting Justice's disciplinary decision was a judicial decision; where that decision concluded (on the available evidence) that a strip search was not necessary, res judicata and abuse of process bar the Attorney-General from re-litigating that issue in subsequent NZBORA proceedings or pleading defences that amount to a collateral attack. Accordingly the impugned parts of the defence were struck out because the Department had the opportunity to and should have produced the relevant evidence before the Visiting Justice.
24 Sept 2020
Application to strike out parts of the defendant's defence was dismissed because findings in the prison disciplinary proceeding did not operate as a conclusive estoppel in the civil claim given differences in proof standards and because it was not appropriate at interlocutory stage to determine whether the Crown's pleaded factual assertions necessarily failed; accordingly the pleaded defence that officers had reasonable grounds could stand and raising it did not constitute an abuse of process in the circumstances.
28 Sept 2018
Section 98 requires an officer to have reasonable grounds to believe the specific prisoner to be searched has an unauthorised item; a mass strip search of all prisoners without individualized reasonable grounds is unlawful. The strip searches of Taylor and Smith were therefore unlawful and breached NZBORA s21. The single, brief unlawful searches did not, however, amount to breaches of NZBORA s23(5). Under the PVC the court awarded modest compensatory damages ($1,000 each) as effective redress.
2 Apr 2012
The second strip search was unlawful because officers did not consider or establish the statutory necessity required by Corrections Act s98(5) (no reasonable grounds of an unauthorised item and no assessment of less intrusive options) and therefore breached s21 NZBORA; because a declaration alone would not provide effective redress given two unlawful searches in one day and the s14 factors, compensation was appropriate under the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act, and $600 was awarded.
27 Jul 2006
The r78 application was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the six nominated representatives were clearly aligned with and adequately representative of the six defined groups and failed to show sufficient common issues of fact or law across group members, such that a representative order would risk injustice and prejudice to the defendants.
5 Jul 2006
Court held the police had an implied licence to enter and move about the premises in pursuit of a person and that licence was not unequivocally revoked until the plaintiff's contemporaneous assault on an officer; therefore police entry and initial searches on 25 September were lawful and subsequent force and arrest were justified; the 14 October 2003 warrant was valid and properly executed; the 4 November 2003 stop and search were lawful; no malicious prosecution or misfeasance in public office was established; strip search complied with Police Act and procedures; plaintiff's NZBORA complaint…