Legal Research
Cases
Deliu v Attorney-General

Deliu v Attorney-General

Case [2023] NZHC 2375 29 August 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-1803

[2023] NZHC 2375

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, Part 30 High Court Rules, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Declaratory Judgments Act 1908, the common law and equity

IN THE MATTER

of proceedings moving for an application for judicial review, writs, Bill of Rights claims and a petition for declaratory relief

BETWEEN

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Second Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)
29 August 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2023 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Law (Wellington) for Respondents
Copy to Applicant in person

DELIU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2375 [29 August 2023]

Introduction

[1]This is a costs judgment.

[2] In my judgment dated 15 March 2023, I dismissed Mr Deliu’s application for judicial review.1 He sought to review the decisions of police and the Auckland Crown Solicitor in laying and maintaining criminal charges against him. I did not consider that his claims of mala fides were made out. Further, even if his claims of police impropriety did possess some merit, they were no longer the operative decision, being supplanted by the Crown Solicitor’s review of the charges, and therefore no longer relevant. Finally, most of the claims, even if proven, did not meet the very high threshold for judicial review of prosecutorial discretion and failed to appreciate the restrictions on judicial review of such decisions. In essence, Mr Deliu’s claims failed on all points and by some margin.

[3] The Crown now seeks increased costs of 50 per cent on the basis that Mr Deliu failed to act reasonably by bringing a claim that was bound to fail. Mr Deliu opposes any award of costs, let alone an award of increased costs.

Attorney-General

[4] Mr Smith, for the Attorney-General, submits that Mr Deliu’s claims were sufficiently meritless that an award of indemnity costs could be made. He refers to the various rulings I made against Mr Deliu that demonstrate that this high threshold is met. They include:2
[6] I have decided that Mr Deliu’s claims cannot succeed. In short, the Courts will not interfere with the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion to bring and continue charges, other than on the ground of evidential insufficiency, without clear evidence of wrongdoing which requires as a condign response that the charges be stayed or struck out. That is a high threshold to cross and Mr Deliu’s claims do not come close to doing so.

…

[19] Even assuming that Mr Deliu is correct in saying that the police were prejudiced against him, and even if there were actual conflicts of interest, that

1 Deliu v Attorney-General [2023] NZHC 512.
2 Deliu v Attorney-General, above n 1, citing Moevao v Department of Labour [1980] 1 NZLR 464 (CA); and Polynesian Spa Ltd v…

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 Deliu v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Deliu v Attorney-General [2023] NZHC 2375
Case: [2023] NZHC 2375
Decision Date: 29 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Francis Catalin Deliu sought judicial review against the Attorney-General and the New Zealand Police regarding the laying and maintaining of criminal charges against him. The Court dismissed his application, finding his claims of mala fides unsubstantiated and his allegations against police and the Crown Solicitor not meeting the high threshold for judicial review of prosecutorial decisions. The Crown subsequently applied for increased costs based on Deliu's unreasonable conduct in bringing a claim bound to fail.

The Court considered whether to award increased costs under Rule 14.6 of the High Court Rules 2016, which permits increased costs for various reasons, including taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or argument that lacks merit. The Court found that Deliu's claims were indeed bound to fail, as they were factually tenuous and legally untenable. Consequently, the Court granted the Crown's application for increased costs, ordering Deliu to pay 50 per cent more than the standard costs, amounting to $37,642.50. This decision reflects the Court's view that Deliu's conduct in pursuing these claims was unreasonable and contributed significantly to the time and expense of the proceeding.

Orders