Chisnall v Attorney-General

[2022] NZCA 24

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA21/2020
 [2022] NZCA 24

BETWEEN	MARK DAVID CHISNALL Appellant/Cross-Respondent
AND	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent/Cross-Appellant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ARA POUTAMA AOTEAROA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Second Respondent

Hearing:	2 and 3 February 2021 (further submissions received 21 December 2021)
Court:	Cooper, Brown, Clifford, Gilbert and Collins JJ
Counsel:	A J Ellis, B J R Keith and G K Edgeler for Appellant D J Perkins and M J McKillop for First Respondent No appearance for Second Respondent
Judgment:	22 February 2022 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

We make declarations that:

APart 1A of the Parole Act 2002 is inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that inconsistency has not been justified under s 5 of that Act.

BThe Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 is inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that inconsistency has not been justified under s 5 of that Act.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

1. In our judgment of 22 November 2021 we expressed our conclusion that it was appropriate for the Court to make declarations of inconsistency.[1] 

   [1]Chisnallv The Attorney-General [2021] NZCA 616 at [230].

2. In accordance with [231] of our judgment we received a joint memorandum of counsel, but the memorandum did not record an agreed position as to the form of declarations to be made. 

3. Having considered the memorandum of counsel, we consider that the declarations that will best reflect the terms of the judgment are declarations that:

   (a)Part 1A of the Parole Act 2002 is inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that inconsistency has not been justified under s 5 of that Act.

   (b)The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 is inconsistent with s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that inconsistency has not been justified under s 5 of that Act.

1. We make declarations accordingly. 

Solicitors:
F J Handy, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent