Hartley v Attorney-General - [2019] NZHC 1727

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2018-485-409

[2019] NZHC 1727

UNDER THE Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

PETER JOHN HARTLEY

Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED IN RESPECT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

THE PRISON DIRECTOR OF RIMUTAKA PRISON

Second Respondent

Hearing:
29 April 2019

30 May 2019 – further submissions for the Respondents 7 June 2019 – submissions in reply for the Applicant

Appearances:

Applicant self-represented via AVL from Christchurch Prison R S May for First and Second Respondents

Judgment:

22 July 2019

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] Mr Hartley, the applicant, is currently a prisoner at Christchurch Men’s Prison. He applies for judicial review of the Department of Corrections’ decisions denying him access to certain litigation facilities, both historically and currently. Mr Hartley seeks directions from the Court for access to computer facilities which will enable him to work safely and protect his data.

HARTLEY v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SUED IN RESPECT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2019] NZHC 1727 [22 July 2019]

Background

[2] Mr Hartley was convicted of 18 counts of sexual offending against six teenage complainants and one count of making an intimate video recording.1 Mr Hartley appealed his convictions and his sentence of preventive detention. The Court of Appeal upheld his convictions but allowed his sentence appeal, substituting the preventive detention sentence with a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 50 percent.2 Mr Hartley intends to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. Before that, he intends to apply to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to adduce fresh evidence in respect of his convictions and raise further appeal grounds in the Court of Appeal.

[3] Over the course of his incarceration at Christchurch Men’s Prison and previously at Rimutaka Prison, Mr Hartley has made several requests to prison managers for access to certain litigation facilities and has been denied them. To understand the background of this claim, I will canvass Mr Hartley’s access to litigation facilities, first at Rimutaka Prison and secondly at Christchurch Men’s Prison.

Mr Hartley’s Access to Litigation Facilities

At Rimutaka Prison

[4] While a sentenced prisoner at Rimutaka Prison, Mr Hartley made an application to the Department of Corrections (Corrections) for access to a computer to assist with litigation. At the time, he was a defendant in three High Court trials and had lodged an appeal in relation to his criminal convictions and sentence. Mr Hartley’s application was declined by the Prison Director on the basis that an electric typewriter was adequate to meet his needs, and that access to a computer would not be consistent with the maintenance of the safety and security of the prison.

1 R v Hartley HC Wellington CRI-2010-085-4305, 29 March 2012.
2 Hartley v R [2014] NZCA 162.

[5] Mr Hartley lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman on 14 May 2012 requesting an investigation into the reasonableness of Corrections’ decision to decline his…

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 Hartley v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Hartley v Attorney-General [2019] NZHC 1727
Case: [2019] NZHC 1727
Decision Date: 22 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter John Hartley, a prisoner incarcerated at Christchurch Men’s Prison, applied for judicial review of the Department of Corrections’ decisions denying him access to certain litigation facilities, both historically and currently. Mr Hartley sought directions from the Court for access to computer facilities which would enable him to work safely and protect his data. The respondents opposed Mr Hartley’s application for review and the relief he sought, arguing that Mr Hartley had alternative facilities available to him, namely a typewriter and writing materials, which were adequate for the purposes of allowing him to participate in the proceedings. They submitted that Mr Hartley’s request for computer equipment for his personal and unsupervised use would amount to the issue of property to the applicant, which was not authorised. The respondents also argued that Mr Hartley’s application in these proceedings was directed at his criminal convictions for historical sexual offending only and that his appeal was stale.

The Court noted that the Ombudsman had previously found Corrections’ decision to deny Mr Hartley computer access unreasonable and that Corrections had since taken steps to fulfil its obligations under the relevant regulation by making available a Secure Online Learning (SOL) suite for the purposes of prisoners who can access computer facilities for litigation purposes. The Court found that the SOL suite provided adequate facilities for Mr Hartley. The Court considered that there were adequate measures in place to protect Mr Hartley’s data and that the Crown, as a party to Mr Hartley’s proceedings, had an obligation to conduct itself as a model litigant. The Court was satisfied that Mr Hartley had “adequate facilities” to prepare for his litigation. The application for review was declined.

Orders