Bowers v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 1668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2023-409-161

[2025] NZHC 1668

BETWEEN
BRAD BOWERS

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL in respect of the Department of Corrections

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Plaintiff - self-represented

A B Bloomfield and O Kiel for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

As to mode and costs of appearance

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Mr Bowers, is currently a serving prisoner. He has commenced proceedings against the defendant, sued on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Corrections).1

[2] In his amended statement of claim, Mr Bowers alleges breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), the Corrections Act 2004 and the Corrections Regulations 2005. He pleads that, while attending the Kia Marama Unit between September 2017 and October 2018, he was subjected to a treatment programme that caused a "loss of his inherent dignity" under s 25(5) of NZBORA2

1 Crown Proceedings Act 1950, s 14(2)(c).
2 Amended statement of claim, para 3.

BOWERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1668 [23 June 2025]

which has harmed and traumatised him. The alleged breaches of the Corrections Act and Corrections Regulations are not immediately evident from the amended statement of claim.

[3]As relief, Mr Bowers seeks written apologies, damages amounting to

$575,000, an order likely in the nature of mandamus to require Corrections to pay for an outside, independent psychologist to treat and rehabilitate him, and a written assurance that the programme which caused him the alleged harm and trauma he pleads is discontinued.

[4] A substantive hearing of this application is set down for 4, 5 and 6 August 2025.

[5] This judgment concerns the plaintiff's request to attend the hearing in person, under s 65(3) of the Corrections Act 2004. He also asks that I exercise my discretion under s 65(4) of the Corrections Act not to require him to deposit a sum sufficient to pay the expenses of bringing him to the Court and returning him to prison during the substantive hearing.

[6] The defendant takes no position on the plaintiff's request and abides the decision of the Court.

Attendance at Court during the substantive hearing

[7] I am not aware of any application for the plaintiff to appear at his hearing via AVL from prison. However, the provisions of s 65 of the Corrections Act may nonetheless apply. The relevant provisions are:

65 Removal of prisoner for judicial purposes

…

(2) Subsection (3) applies if—

…

(b) in any other case, the interests of justice require the attendance for judicial purposes of a prisoner.

(3) If this subsection applies, any court or Judge or Registrar may, by order in writing, direct the manager of the prison in which the prisoner is detained to bring the prisoner, or to ensure that the prisoner is brought, before the court or, as the case may require, to arrange the attendance of the prisoner for those judicial purposes, as…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bowers v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Bowers v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 1668
Case: [2025] NZHC 1668
Decision Date: 23 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Brad Bowers, a prisoner, has filed a claim against the Attorney-General, representing the Department of Corrections. Bowers alleges that while he was in the Kia Marama Unit between September 2017 and October 2018, he was subjected to a treatment programme that violated his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other statutes, causing him harm and trauma. He seeks various forms of relief including written apologies, damages, and an assurance that the programme will be discontinued. The court was tasked with determining whether Bowers should be allowed to attend the hearing in person and if he should be required to deposit funds for his appearance costs.

The primary legal issues were whether it was in the interests of justice for Bowers to attend the hearing in person under section 65(3) of the Corrections Act 2004, and whether he should be required to deposit funds for his appearance under section 65(4) of the same Act. The court considered precedent from Taylor v Attorney-General and Smith v Attorney-General and noted the absence of any application for Bowers to appear via Audio-Visual Link (AVL) from prison. The court found that it was appropriate for Bowers to attend in person because the case involved a sui generis public law action which would likely require extensive examination of witnesses and documents.

The court also exercised its discretion under section 65(4) not to require Bowers to deposit funds for his appearance costs. The court reasoned that Bowers likely had limited resources and that it was in the interests of justice for him to appear in person. The defendant did not oppose Bowers' request nor did it raise any safety concerns. Therefore, the court made an order for Bowers to be brought before the court in person and declined to require him to deposit funds for his appearance.

Orders