Grinder v New Zealand Parole Board

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 147/2023
[2024] NZSC 50

BETWEEN	BRETT DAVID GRINDER Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY‑GENERAL First Respondent
AND	NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD Second Respondent

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and I J G Hensman for Applicant C A Griffin for First Respondent M S Smith and V J Owen for Second Respondent
Judgment:	6 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Attorney‑General v Grinder [2023] NZCA 596).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and in particular the proper approach to the imposition, variation or discharge of special conditions when a person subject to preventive detention is granted release on parole.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for Applicant
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent
Vicki J Owen, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brett David Grinder sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal concerning the conditions of his parole after being granted release under preventive detention. The appeal raised significant questions about the appropriate judicial approach to setting, modifying, or removing special conditions for individuals subject to preventive detention who are released on parole. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeal had correctly allowed the appeal and had applied the right legal standards in addressing these conditions.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of legislative provisions governing the imposition, variation, or discharge of special conditions for individuals released on parole under preventive detention. The Supreme Court had to consider whether the Court of Appeal had properly balanced the statutory objectives of preventive detention with the rights and freedoms of the individual. Specifically, the court needed to examine if the Court of Appeal had correctly identified and applied the relevant statutory criteria and principles when setting these conditions.

In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the complexity of balancing public safety and individual rights in the context of preventive detention. The court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed correctly allowed the appeal and had applied the proper approach in setting out the criteria for imposing, varying, or discharging special conditions. The Supreme Court endorsed the Court of Appeal's emphasis on the need for a nuanced and balanced approach, ensuring that special conditions are both proportionate and necessary to achieve the objectives of preventive detention. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the applicant leave to appeal and upheld the approach taken by the Court of Appeal regarding the imposition and management of special conditions for parolees under preventive detention.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established