Goldberg v NZ Parole Board HC Auckland CRI 2007-404-000092

[2007] NZHC 1818

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2007-404-000092

GLEN DALLAS GOLDBERG

Appellant

v

NZ PAROLE BOARD

Respondent

Hearing:         11 June 2007

Appearances: Appellant in Person

M Thomas for Respondent

Judgment:      11 June 2007

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Solicitors:           Crown Solicitor, Auckland

Copy to:             Glen Goldberg

Parole Board

GOLDBERG V NZ PAROLE BOARD HC AK CRI 2007-404-000092  11 June 2007

[1]      On 30 November 2004 Mr Goldberg was sentenced in the High Court at Auckland on four counts of attempting to  pervert the course of justice and five counts of acting in contravention of a protection order.  The effective sentence was six years.  Mr Goldberg came before the Parole Board on 8 November 2006 to be considered for release on parole.  His application for release on parole was declined by the Parole Board.

[2]      Mr Goldberg then took steps to have that decision reviewed.   He filed an application for judicial review in the High Court at Wellington.  Before the first call of the proceeding the application was withdrawn.   Subsequently Mr Goldberg has filed a notice of appeal dated 9 February 2007 in this Court at Auckland.  That is the matter that is before the Court this afternoon.  Mr Goldberg wants to challenge the decision of the  Parole Board to  decline  parole  on  a  number  of grounds.    It  is unnecessary for me to go into the grounds this afternoon.   As I explained to Mr Goldberg at the outset of the hearing this afternoon there is no  basis for me to embark on a consideration of the merits of the appeal as there is no jurisdiction for this Court to hear an appeal from a decision of the Parole Board declining parole.

[3]      Appeals from the decisions of the Parole Board are governed by ss 67 to 69 of the Parole Act 2006.  Section 68 provides for an appeal to the High Court but only in relation to postponement orders, an order under s 107 or a final recall order and only then following a decision on review.

[4]      A decision of the Parole Board not to grant parole is not one of the categories of case that an appeal to this Court can be taken from.  This point has arisen before. In the case of White v New Zealand Parole Board (HC Auckland, CRI 2004-404-

354, 1 October 2004) Winkelmann J considered the relevant provisions of the legislation in detail.  The Judge concluded that there was no jurisdiction under the Act for appeals against the refusal of the Parole Board to grant parole to be heard by the High Court.

[5]      There is no common law right of appeal as was confirmed in Guy v Medical

Council of New Zealand [1995] NZAR 67.

[6]      As has been said in White and on other occasions the appropriate course of action is to take judicial review proceedings.  Mr Goldberg initially took those steps in this case but withdrew the application for judicial review before hearing.

[7]      In some cases the Court will convert an appeal into a hearing in the nature of judicial review but that can only be embarked upon when the issues are within a narrow compass and are capable of prompt and fair resolution by the High Court: Greer v Visiting Justices  & Anor (HC Auckland,  CIV  2006-404-3294,  16  June

2006).   The extent of the matters that Mr Goldberg seeks to raise cannot be dealt with in that rather informal way.  It is a matter that would require evidence by way of affidavit if it was to be considered.   The respondent may wish to file evidence in response.

Result

[8]      The short point is that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal.  The appeal must therefore be dismissed.

Venning J