Boyd v Australian Federal Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 40/2024
[2024] NZSC 82

BETWEEN	ABDULLAH ROBERT BOYD Applicant
AND	AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE First Respondent NEW SOUTH WALES LEGAL AID Second Respondent NEW ZEALAND DEFENCE FORCE Third Respondent NEW ZEALAND POLICE Fourth Respondent ATTORNEY-GENERAL Fifth Respondent OFFICE OF THE INSPECTORATE Sixth Respondent CANTERBURY INTELLIGENCE TEAM Seventh Respondent MINISTRY OF HEALTH Eighth Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person No appearance for Respondents
Judgment:	30 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
CThe application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
DThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Boyd has sought leave to appeal a judgment of the Court of Appeal in which his appeal to that Court was struck out as an abuse of process.[1]
[1]Boyd v Australia Federal Police [2024] NZCA 79 (Gilbert, Ellis and Wylie JJ) [CA judgment] at [18].
The High Court had struck out the proceeding in which the appeal was brought under r 5.35B of the High Court Rules 2016 on the same ground.[2]
[2]Boyd v Australia Federal Police [2023] NZHC 2358 (Churchman J) at [25].
The proceeding was struck out at inception in the High Court, and the appeal was struck out on the Court of Appeal’s own motion, without hearing from the respondents. They have not been required to file submissions in this Court either.
We record that this Court has previously declined an earlier application for leave to appeal a decision of Mallon J in which she declined Mr Boyd’s request to appoint amicus curiae and stay his appeal.[3]
[3]Boyd v Australian Federal Police [2024] NZSC 4. See Boyd v Australian Federal Police [2023] NZCA 517.
In its strike‑out decision the Court of Appeal pointed to fundamental deficiencies in Mr Boyd’s pleading on a number of grounds.[4] So far as the first and second respondents are concerned, it noted that New Zealand courts have no jurisdiction over actions taken by them in Australia.[5] So far as the claim seeks money, it appears to be out of time.[6] The Court held that these objections might not justify striking out if the claim was otherwise properly pleaded, but it was not.[7] Mr Boyd pleaded no facts that could support any known cause of action against any of the defendants. And so far as Mr Boyd wants an interim order that he must continue to be detained in Christchurch, where he is serving a long sentence for serious sexual offending, this civil proceeding could not supply any legal basis for such an order.[8]
[4]CA judgment, above n 1, at [13].
[5]At [14].
[6]At [15].
[7]At [16].
[8]At [1] and [17].
The notice of application for leave to appeal to this Court says that a substantial miscarriage of justice may occur unless the appeal is heard.[9] It says that Mr Boyd has been subjected to torture on Māori land and denied legal redress and rehabilitation. We note that the application was filed slightly out of time but we will extend time because the applicant has given a reasonable explanation for the delay.[10]
[9]See Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).
[10]Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801 at [38].
Mr Boyd sought and was granted an extension of time to file submissions in support of his application. Instead he made an application for leave to adduce further evidence and asked that parts of that application be treated as his submissions on the leave application.
The proposed appeal raises no question of general or public importance.[11] Nor does it appear to present a possible miscarriage of justice.[12] We see that Mr Boyd believes he has been mistreated by the authorities. He believes that this amounts to psychological torture. But he does not explain who has done what to him, when and where they did it, or why these things justify the relief he apparently seeks. Until he gives these details to the relevant courts, there is nothing to which the respondents can be asked to respond. Expressed in legal terms, he does not plead facts that may give rise to a recognisable cause of action. The proposed new evidence cannot resolve this problem.

Result

[11]Senior Courts Act, s 74(2)(a).

[12]Section 74(2)(b).

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
There is no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Abdullah Robert Boyd sought to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal which had struck out his appeal as an abuse of process. Boyd's appeal was against the Australian Federal Police and several other respondents, including New Zealand Legal Aid, the New Zealand Defence Force, and the New Zealand Police. The underlying case involved Boyd's allegations of mistreatment by authorities, which he claimed amounted to psychological torture, and his request for legal redress and rehabilitation. Boyd's appeal was dismissed by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal due to fundamental deficiencies in his pleadings. Boyd argued that a substantial miscarriage of justice might occur if the appeal was not heard, and he sought an extension of time to file his submissions and to adduce further evidence.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the appeal should be allowed, whether Boyd should be granted leave to adduce further evidence, and whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted. The Court considered whether the proposed appeal raised a question of general or public importance, or if it presented a possible miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that Boyd's application was filed slightly out of time but granted the extension as the delay was reasonably explained. However, the Court found that the proposed appeal did not raise a question of general or public importance, nor did it present a possible miscarriage of justice. The Court concluded that Boyd's pleadings were fundamentally deficient, as they did not provide facts that could support any known cause of action against the respondents. Consequently, the proposed new evidence could not resolve these deficiencies.

The Court granted Boyd's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal but dismissed his application for leave to adduce further evidence and his application for leave to appeal. The Court held that Boyd had not pleaded facts that could support a recognisable cause of action, and thus there was nothing to which the respondents could be asked to respond. The Court also noted that the proposed new evidence could not resolve this issue. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established