Legal Research
Cases
Clayton v Currie

Clayton v Currie

Case [2017] NZHC 1302 15 June 2017

Constitutional Validity

Breach of Contract

Causation

Specific Performance

Admissibility of Evidence

Constitutional Law

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2011-409-1178 [2017] NZHC 1302

IN THE MATTER
of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

1990

BETWEEN

VINCENT JAMES CLAYTON First Plaintiff

LINDA JOYCE WESTBURY Second Plaintiff

AND

PHILIPPA CURRIE First Defendant

RAYMOND DONNELLY & CO Second Defendant

THE CROWN SOLICITOR AT CHRISTCHURCH

Third Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Fourth Defendant

CIV- 2013-409-1441

IN THE MATTER of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990

BETWEEN PETER LLOYD MACHIRUS First Plaintiff

NADIA MAVANA PELENATO Second Plaintiff
GARY GEORGE MORELL Third Plaintiff

… continued

VINCENT JAMES CLAYTON v PHILIPPA CURRIE [2017] NZHC 1302 [15 June 2017]

ANDPHILIPPA CURRIE First Defendant

RAYMOND DONNELLY & CO Second Defendant
THE CROWN SOLICITOR AT CHRISTCHURCH
Third Defendant
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND
Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 26-27 April 2017

Counsel:

P N Allan and K L Chalmers for Mr Clayton and Ms Westbury
R W Maze for Mr Machirus, Ms Pelenato and Mr Morrell

J C Pike QC and S K Barr for Ms Currie, Raymond Donnelly and Co, Crown Solicitor at Christchurch and Attorney-General S M Kinsler and S K Shaw for Commissioner of Police (1178) R E Schmidt-McCleave for Legal Complaints Review Officer (1178)

Judgment:

15 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

Table of contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................. [1] Factual background ................................................................................................ [4] The claims .............................................................................................................. [23] (i) Summary judgment ...................................................................................... [31] The law .......................................................................................................... [31]
The application .............................................................................................. [33] Christchurch Charges .................................................................................... [35] L’s custodial status ......................................................................................... [40] Sentence Indication........................................................................................ [42] Misfeasance in public office .......................................................................... [45] Breach of right to a fair trial under the NZBORA ......................................... [63] Malicious prosecution.................................................................................... [68] Deceit ............................................................................................................. [73] Conclusion ..................................................................................................... [76]

(ii) Further and better discovery ....................................................................... [77]

The law .......................................................................................................... [77]
The application .............................................................................................. [79] Private prosecution ........................................................................................ [81] Movements of L before, during and after the trial......................................... [85]
(iii)Non-party discovery ...................................................................................... [93] The law .......................................................................................................... [93] The application .............................................................................................. [96] Documents sought from New Zealand Police ................................................ [97] Documents sought from Legal Complaints Review Officer ......................... [103]

(iv) Application for security for costs ............................................................... [113] (v) Application to set aside interrogatories..................................................... [126] Result .................................................................................................................... [127] Directions ............................................................................................................. [129]

Introduction

[1] Vincent Clayton and Linda Westbury sue the defendants in misfeasance in public office and for breach of their rights pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the NZBORA) (the Clayton Proceedings). Peter Machirus, Nadia Pelenato and Gary Morell sue the same defendants in respect of the same alleged behaviour in misfeasance in public office, breach of the NZBORA, deceit and, by Mr Morell only, malicious prosecution (the Machirus Proceedings). The two
proceedings are being case managed on a consolidated basis.1

[2] The allegations stem from actions taken by the first defendant, Ms Currie, when she appeared for the Crown in a criminal trial which involved all the plaintiffs.

[3] This decision deals with five applications before the Court: (a) the defendants’ application for summary judgment;
(b) Mr Clayton and Ms Westburys’ application for further and better

discovery;

(c) Mr Clayton…

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 Clayton v Currie

Details

AGLC: Clayton v Currie [2017] NZHC 1302
Case: [2017] NZHC 1302
Decision Date: 15 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clayton v Currie involved proceedings by two sets of plaintiffs against a prosecutor and others for misfeasance in public office, breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, deceit, and malicious prosecution. The claims arose from the prosecutor's failure to disclose the full terms of a sentencing indication given to a key Crown witness. The defendants sought summary judgment, further discovery, non-party discovery, security for costs, and the setting aside of interrogatories. The court dismissed all of the defendants' applications, including the application for summary judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs had an arguable case against the defendants on the basis that the prosecutor had a duty to disclose the full sentencing indication and had failed to do so. The court noted that the prosecutor's failure to disclose the full terms of the sentencing indication led to a miscarriage of justice and an effective acquittal of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiffs' claims in misfeasance in public office and for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 were not bound to fail. The court also held that the applications for further discovery, non-party discovery, and security for costs were not well founded. The application to set aside interrogatories was withdrawn. The court ordered that the parties address costs and directed a case management conference.

Orders