Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Hunia-Rikirangi
[2024] NZHC 2159
•2 August 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2024-404-1604
[2024] NZHC 2159
UNDER the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 AND
of an application for a Public Protection Order
BETWEEN
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Applicant
AND
SAM HUNIA-RIKIRANGI
Respondent
Hearing: 1 August 2024 Appearances:
CJ Boshier for the Applicant
Mr Hunia-Rikirangi, Respondent in person
Q Duff, stand-by counsel for Mr Hunia-RikirangiJudgment:
2 August 2024
RESULT JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J
This judgment was delivered by me on 2 August 2024 at 12.30pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
………………….……………
Solicitors: Raymond Donnelly & Co, Christchurch To: Q Duff, Auckland
And to: Mr Hunia-Rikirangi, Auckland
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v HUNIA-RIKIRANGI [2024] NZHC 2159 [2 August 2024]
[1]The application for an Interim Detention Order (IDO) is granted.
[2] Pending determination of the application for a Public Protection Order (PPO), Mr Hunia-Rikirangi is to be detained by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections at the Matawhāiti residence.
[3]Reasons for the above judgment will follow in due course.
[4]I make the following observations.
[5] First, counsel for the applicant is to liaise with the Court to have the application for a PPO set down for a one-day fixture. This should be at the earliest possible opportunity, but taking into account the time necessary for Mr Hunia-Rikirangi to seek and obtain legal advice, and potentially obtain expert health assessor evidence. With this in mind, the application for a PPO should be allocated a one-day fixture in approximately three to four months’ time.
[6] Second, Mr Hunia-Rikirangi is presently self-represented (by choice).1 Given Mr Hunia-Rikirangi’s cognitive impairment, and the seriousness of the present and forthcoming PPO application, this is most concerning.
[7] Mr Hunia-Rikirangi is strongly encouraged to obtain assigned legal counsel in relation to the PPO application. In this context, those supervising Mr Hunia-Rikirangi pursuant to the IDO are to take all steps practicable to inform Mr Hunia-Rikirangi of the importance of having assigned legal counsel on the PPO application and to facilitate steps to enable him to secure legal counsel without delay.
[8] Third, and allied to the above, pending Mr Hunia-Rikirangi obtaining assigned legal counsel for the hearing of the PPO application, Mr Duff is to remain appointed by the Court as stand-by counsel. In the event Mr Hunia-Rikirangi does not obtain assigned legal counsel, and as Mr Duff recommended, stand-by counsel should be in a position at the hearing of the PPO application to cross-examine the report writers
1 I was informed at the hearing that Mr Hunia-Rikirangi has also recently terminated the services of his counsel in his pending District Court charges.
and deponents of affidavits relied on by the Chief Executive in support of the PPO application.
[9] The hearing date of the PPO application should therefore take into account Mr Duff’s availability, as well as the availability of the report writers and deponents of affidavits relied on by the Chief Executive (noting that while ultimately a matter for the presiding Judge, it is highly likely those persons will be able to attend the hearing to give evidence by remote means).
[10] Finally, it is most unfortunate that the only IDO/PPO residence in New Zealand is based in Christchurch, and thus a significant distance from Mr Hunia-Rikirangi’s family/whānau support network. Noting the evidence about the importance of family/whānau contact for residents at Matawhāiti, while Mr Hunia-Rikirangi is detained pursuant to the IDO at that residence, all steps reasonably practicable are to be taken to ensure Mr Hunia-Rikirangi is able to have regular contact with family/whānau members, including his mother.
Fitzgerald J
0
0
0