Butcher v Independent Police Conduct Authority

[2025] NZHC 2511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2001

[2025] NZHC 2511

BETWEEN

CARL DAVID GEORGE BUTCHER

Applicant

AND

INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY

First Respondent

AUCKLAND HARBOURMASTER
Second Respondent (discontinued)

AUCKLAND POLICE DISTRICT COMMANDER

Third Respondent (discontinued)

CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW COMMISSION

Fourth Respondent  cont/…

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

Mr Butcher, self-represented

SB McCusker for First Respondent

Judgment:

1 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

[As to costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 September 2025 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BUTCHER v INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY (Costs) [2025] NZHC 2511 [1 September 2025]

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE CENTRAL AUTHORITY

Fifth Respondent (discontinued)

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
Sixth Respondent (discontinued)

This costs application

[1]                 This judgment deals with costs following my substantive judgment where I struck out Mr Butcher’s judicial review proceeding against the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA).1

[2]                 In that decision,2 I indicated I saw no reason in principle why the ordinary rule that costs follow the event should not apply. I indicated that my preliminary view is that costs on a 2B scale should be awarded, if sought by the IPCA. However, I encouraged the parties to agree cost matters between themselves. If agreement could not be reached, then the IPCA was to file a costs memorandum within 14 days. If Mr Butcher disagreed, he was to file a memorandum in reply 14 days after his receipt of the IPCA’s memorandum.

[3]                 The parties were unable to agree. The IPCA has filed a memorandum seeking costs of $18,164 on a 2B scale basis. It also seeks $822.56 in disbursements. Mr Butcher has not filed a response. I give my decision on the papers.

[4]                 When parties are self-represented, there is always something of a conundrum regarding costs.

[5]                 On the one hand, a New Zealander should have the right to test a Court’s decision and to do so on a self-represented basis.

[6]                 On the other hand, such appeals or reviews should be responsibly brought and only when there are genuine arguments. Where there is no chance of success and where, as may be the case here, a person simply cannot accept that an organisation has done its conscientious best to deal with his other complaints, there can be much less sympathy.

1      Butcher v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2025] NZHC 1361.

2 At [70].

[7]                 The Court’s resources are not limitless. Significant time is taken up in deploying the resources of the Court to determine such appeals/reviews. That involves the use of the courtroom, court staff, and Judge sitting and writing time. In this case, while I bent over backwards to assist Mr Butcher and to try to understand his concerns, realistically there was no chance of him succeeding. Court resources are not available so that someone can embark on a meritless, personal crusade, or, put another way, as an extension of a person’s inability to let go of a situation.

[8]                 There is a fine line in balancing all these matters. With great respect to Mr Butcher, his was a case that crossed that line and could never have succeeded. This is the same view I take in respect of his review against the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

[9]                 Here, in particular, I take into account that Mr Butcher’s pleadings have been struck out on two separate occasions and was identified by the Court as still deficient, even on a second re-pleading. At that stage the Court did not consider it useful to require a further re-pleading in view of the procedural history.

[10]             I agree that this was a matter where close to indemnity costs, on the basis of the procedural history and the demonstrable inadequacy of all the pleadings, may have been required. However, as a gesture of understanding and sympathy to Mr Butcher, who obviously feels very strongly about the matters he brought to the IPCA, I limit the costs to the scale 2B basis.

[11]             The respondent seeks to recover reasonable costs and disbursements. I accept most of them. However, in respect of an appearance in the Judicial Review List on 17 July 2024 purely for the purpose of allocating a hearing date for the application for strike out to be heard, the IPCA has claimed the full 2B amount for preparation, preparation of a memorandum and an appearance. This amounts to 1.1 days of claimed costs. In my view, that goes beyond what is reasonable and I limit my award for that appearance in the judicial review list to the appearance (0.3 days) only.

Result

[12]             I order that Mr Butcher pay $16,252 in costs and $822.56 in disbursements to the IPCA.

Becroft J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington Copy to: C Butcher