Fuller v Carter - [2023] NZHC 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-000070

[2023] NZHC 448

BETWEEN
PETER MALCOLM FULLER

Plaintiff

AND

SERGEANT CARTER NEW ZEALAND POLICE CORPORATION

Defendant

Hearing: [On the papers]

Counsel:

Mr Fuller, Plaintiff in person

Judgment:

9 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 9 March 2023 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

To: Plaintiff

FULLER v CARTER [2023] NZHC 448 [9 March 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 25 January 2023, I issued a judgment regarding Peter Fuller’s statement of claim filed 16 January 2023, which had been referred to me by the Registrar per r 5.35A, High Court Rules 2016.

[2] In respect of Mr Fuller’s claim in tort as to assault and false imprisonment and breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, I directed the Registrar to obtain the District Court file concerning Mr Fuller’s criminal charges.1 This was because without the file and its accompanying context it was difficult to assess whether his claims were an abuse of process. I stayed this part of the claim until further order.

[3] I have now received the District Court file and can determine whether Mr Fuller’s claim is an abuse of process. The background to the claim is set out in my previous judgment.2 Mr Fuller states his false imprisonment occurred on 26 June 2021 at about 5 pm and he was incarcerated for two days.

Background

[4] The Court file reveals the following events. On 25 June 2021 a bail variation was made requiring Mr Fuller to report daily to Henderson Police Station between 8 am and 4 pm. Mr Fuller signed a bail notice containing this variation. On 26 June he reported to the Henderson Police station at 5:05 pm. The breach of bail record states:

When asked by Sgt Carter as to why he was so late he stated he was in an important legal counsel meeting. When asked what lawyer was having meetings on a Saturday he became agitated and repeatedly stated ‘what you don’t believe me’. He was asked for the name of the lawyer which he advised was Robin however he did not know his last name. He was afforded the opportunity to get his phone so as Police could speak with Robin which he facilitated. Sgt Carter spoke with Robin who when asked his occupation he stated he was retired. He did advise that the Defendant was with him in a social capacity and legal matters were discussed in general[.]

[5] Mr Fuller was then arrested and held in custody. It is at this point he alleges Sergeant Carter squeezed his upper left arm and dragged him to the cells. Mr Fuller

1 Fuller v Carter [2023] NZHC 25 at [20] and [24].
2 At [8]–[14].

appeared in Court on 28 June brought on breach of bail conditions. He was warned he needs…

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 Fuller v Carter

Details

AGLC: Fuller v Carter [2023] NZHC 448
Case: [2023] NZHC 448
Decision Date: 9 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Fuller v Carter, the plaintiff, Peter Malcolm Fuller, sought to bring a claim for assault, false imprisonment, and breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 against Sergeant Ian Carter, a representative of the New Zealand Police Corporation. The case was heard in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, and the judgment was delivered by Harvey J on 9 March 2023. The plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully detained and assaulted by Sergeant Carter on 26 June 2021. The key legal issues the court had to address were whether the plaintiff's claims were an abuse of process and if there was lawful justification for the alleged force and imprisonment.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding assault, battery, and false imprisonment, as well as the concept of abuse of process. The court found that although the plaintiff's claims were of dubious merit, they were not an abuse of process, as they were intelligible and the particulars were pleaded. The court also noted that the claim, to some degree, turned on factual findings that needed to be explored at trial. The court further held that it would not be manifestly unfair to the defendant for them to be required to respond to the plaintiff's claims. In addition, the court distinguished between plainly untenable claims that are an abuse of the court's process and claims of highly dubious merit. The plaintiff's case fell into the latter category.

As a result of the court's decision, the stay on the plaintiff's claim was lifted, and the statement of claim was accepted for filing and served on Sergeant Ian Carter. The court also struck out part of the plaintiff's claim relating to the District Court's inaction on the affidavits filed in the criminal proceeding, as they were based on "sovereign citizen" arguments with no basis in law. The plaintiff has the right to appeal the court's decision to strike out part of his claim(s).

Orders