Genge v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA530/2022
[2023] NZCA 186

BETWEEN	RICHARD GENGE Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS First Respondent
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person W S Taffs for First Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	23 May 2023 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review is declined. Security of $7,060 must be paid by 16 June 2023.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Genge has applied for review of a Registrar’s decision to decline to waive security for costs.
Mr Genge is impecunious. He has not sought legal aid to pay for counsel.[1]
[1]Reekie vAttorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [36].
The claim concerns his prison security classification and its consequences for him. It is a claim of a kind that would justify waiver, had it any merit.
The Registrar found the appeal lacks merit. I agree. The evidence before the High Court was that security classification is not automated and does not turn on a prisoner’s RoC*RoI score.[2] That is confirmed by Mr Genge’s own classification history.[3] Further, Mr Genge’s low-medium classification does not preclude access to rehabilitation services.[4] Justice Nation observed that most of this evidence was uncontested.[5]
[2]Genge v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections [2022] NZHC 2508, at [48]–[50].
[3]At [11]–[22].
[4]At [87]–[94].
[5]At [88].
The application for review is declined. Security of $7,060 must be paid by 16 June 2023.

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office, Christchurch for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard an application from Richard Genge, an impecunious prisoner, seeking review of a Registrar's decision to decline a waiver of security for costs. Genge, who has not sought legal aid, is pursuing a claim regarding his prison security classification and its consequences. The Registrar found the appeal to be without merit, a decision the Court of Appeal upheld. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal had sufficient merit to warrant a waiver of the security for costs. The evidence before the High Court indicated that the security classification was not automated and did not rely solely on a prisoner's RoC*RoI score, as confirmed by Genge's own classification history. Moreover, the court noted that Genge's low-medium classification did not preclude access to rehabilitation services. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Registrar that the appeal lacked merit and upheld the decision. The applicant must pay security of $7,060 by 16 June 2023.

The Court of Appeal's reasoning was grounded in the evidence presented at the High Court, which showed that the security classification was not automated and did not solely depend on a prisoner's RoC*RoI score. This was substantiated by Genge's classification history. Additionally, the court highlighted that Genge's low-medium classification did not restrict his access to rehabilitation services. Justice Nation observed that much of the evidence was uncontested. The Court of Appeal, therefore, found no grounds to overturn the Registrar's decision. The application for review was declined, and Genge must pay the required security by the specified date. This decision underscores the necessity for applicants to demonstrate the merit of their claims when seeking a waiver of security for costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established