Greer v Attorney-General - [2018] NZHC 1290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-874

[2018] NZHC 1290

UNDER THE Judicature Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF

Application for public law damages

BETWEEN

ALAN IVO GREER

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE HARROP

Second Respondent

HIGH COURT JUDGE MACKENZIE

Third Respondent

THE COURT OF APPEAL

Fourth Respondent

Hearing: 26 March 2018

Appearances:

Applicant in person

M J McKillop and G M Taylor for Respondents

Judgment:

1 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1] In 2004 Mr Greer was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Following his release in January 2010 Mr Greer was charged with breach of his release conditions. Mr Greer applied for and was denied bail on several occasions. In August 2010, after spending five and a half months on remand and a shorter period on bail, a jury acquitted Mr Greer of the charge of breaching his conditions.

GREER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1290 [1 June 2018]

[2] Mr Greer seeks damages for false imprisonment, breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and violation of his rights by the District Court Judge, High Court Judge and Court of Appeal.

[3] The Attorney-General applies to strike out Mr Greer’s claim on several grounds including that it is an abuse of process, discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action in tort and no reasonably arguable cause of action for public law compensation.

[4] Accordingly, the issue which I must decide is whether the statement of claim gives rise to an arguable case.

Strike-out principles

[5] The court may strike out a pleading if it discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, is likely to cause prejudice or delay, is frivolous or vexatious or is otherwise an abuse of process.1

[6] The principles applicable to an application for strike-out on the basis of no reasonably arguable cause of action are settled:2

(a)Pleaded facts, whether or not admitted, are assumed to be true. This does not extend to entirely speculative pleaded allegations.

(b)The cause of action must be clearly untenable. The court must be certain the claim cannot succeed.

(c)The court is reluctant to terminate a claim short of trial. The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in clear cases.

(d)The jurisdiction is not excluded by the need to decide questions of law requiring extensive argument.

1 High Court Rules 2016, r 15.1(1).
2 Attorney-General v Prince [1998] 1 NZLR 262 (CA) at 267, endorsed by the Supreme Court in
Couch v Attorney-General [2008] NZSC 45, [2008] 3 NZLR 725 at [33].

[7] Where a proceeding is to be struck out as an abuse of process an element of impropriety and misuse of the Court’s processes is required. Forms of abuse can include prolix, unintelligible or scandalous pleadings, a collateral challenge to concluded proceedings or an attempt to obtain a collateral benefit.3

Mr Greer’s proceeding

[8] The essence of Mr Greer’s case is that the successive bail decisions denied him…

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 Greer v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Greer v Attorney-General [2018] NZHC 1290
Case: [2018] NZHC 1290
Decision Date: 1 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Greer v Attorney-General, the applicant, Alan Ivo Greer, sought damages for false imprisonment and violation of his rights by several judicial officers, including the District Court Judge, High Court Judge, and the Court of Appeal. The basis of the claim was that the applicant was unlawfully denied bail after his release from a seven-year imprisonment sentence in January 2010. Despite spending five and a half months in custody, a jury acquitted the applicant of the charge of breaching his release conditions in August 2010. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's statement of claim disclosed a reasonably arguable cause of action.

The court examined the principles of striking out a pleading, which includes the assumption that pleaded facts are true, the requirement for the claim to be clearly untenable, and the reluctance of the court to terminate a claim without trial. The court also noted the doctrine of judicial immunity, which denies compensation claims against judicial officers for alleged breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The court found that the applicant's claims against the judicial officers were barred by this doctrine and that the applicant's claim for false imprisonment was a collateral attack on concluded judgments, making it an abuse of process.

The court concluded that the applicant's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process. The claim was statute-barred and the applicant had failed to show any justification for the delay in bringing the claim. As a result, the statement of claim was struck out in its entirety, the proceeding was dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to costs on a 2B basis.

Orders