Genge v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections

[2018] NZHC 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTRCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-397 [2018] NZHC 124

UNDER

The Judicature Amendment Act 1972, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Corrections Act 2004, International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for judicial review

BETWEEN

RICHARD GENGE

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel	Applicant in Person
Judgment:	14 February 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1]                 Mr Genge’s application for judicial review was heard by me on 5 November 2017. The judgment is reserved.

[2]                 On 8 February 2018 Mr Genge wrote to the Deputy Registrar, Christchurch High Court Registry, to request a transcript of the hearing. Mr Genge articulates no basis or reason for requesting a transcript.

GENGE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2018] NZHC 124 [14 February 2018]

[3]                 Under r 20.14 of the High Court Rules the Court may order that a transcript be made of all or part of the evidence given at a hearing before a decision-maker. An application must be filed either:

(a)20 working days after the filing of a notice of appeal;1 or

(b)the working day before the first case management conference.2

[4]                 Neither pre-condition for Mr Genge’s application applies. Moreover, being an application for judicial review the hearing proceeded on the basis of affidavit evidence. Therefore, there was no evidence to be transcribed.

[5]                 It may be that Mr Genge has assumed a transcription already exists and that he is simply requesting a copy of the transcript. Such applications are to be made under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

[6]                 As I have stated no transcription of the hearing was made and therefore no such written document exists on the Court file.

[7]                 In relation to a civil proceeding “document” is defined in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules as including “records in electronic form”.3 That definition would include an electronic recording of the hearing using the FTR4 system. The parties to a civil proceeding may search, inspect and copy the court file or any document relating to the proceeding.5 A record of a court proceeding in electronic form may be copied only with permission of a Judge.6

[8]                 To provide a “searchable” form of the recording would require the Ministry’s National Transcription Service to produce a written transcript of the recording. In Misiuk v Superintendent of a Penal Institution Dobson J observed the limited resources

1      Rule 20.14(2)(a).

2      Rule 20.14(2)(b).

3      Definition of “document” in r 4, Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

4      “For the Record”, a digital system used to record audio files of proceedings heard in the courtroom.

5      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules, r 9(1).

6      Rule 9(5)(a).

of the National Transcription Services to be one of the reasons for the requirement for leave under the previous High Court Rules.7

[9]                 Similar considerations apply to Mr Genge’s request. There is no written transcript of the hearing. And there is no basis upon which to request the National Transcription Service to produce a transcript. Nor, in any event, has Mr Genge suggested any grounds upon which a transcription should be made.

[10]Accordingly, the application must be declined.

Karen Clark J

7      Misuik v Superintendent of a Penal Institution HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-6625, 8 October 2010 at [19].