Hill v Adhb TeWhatu Oranga : Tewhetu Tawera Mental Health Services Auckland

[2024] NZCA 132

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA457/2023
 [2024] NZCA 132

BETWEEN	HAYDN CAMPBELL NICHOLAS HILL Appellant
AND	ADHB-TEWHATU ORANGA: Tewhetu Tawera Mental Health Services Auckland First Respondent
AND	POLICE CROWN REPRESENTATIVE Second Respondent
AND	ROBYN LISA ROPATI Third Respondent

Court:	Courtney, Dunningham and Moore JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	24 April 2024 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is struck out.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Dunningham J)

1. In July 2023, Mr Hill, filed proceedings under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.  These were referred to the Judicial Review List Judge under r 5.35A(3)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016 for consideration given the Registrar’s belief that, on their face, they were “plainly an abuse of the process of the Court”.

2. In a judgment dated 21 July 2023, Jagose J ordered the proceeding be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court.[1]  He also advised Mr Hill of his right to appeal against the decision.[2]

   [1]Hill v ADHB-TeWhatu Oranga [2023] NZHC 1920 at [9], under rr 5.35B(2)(a) and 15.1.

   [2]As required under r 5.35B(3).

3. Mr Hill has taken up that opportunity by filing a notice of appeal on 9 August 2023.

4. The notice of appeal reads as follows:

   This is my written form to appeal against the decision of Honourable Judge J.Jagose

   delivering a verdict that the documents i had previously submitted into the high court be struck out with out giving Mr Hill the opportunity to explain in this matter allowing me to appeal against the decision in relation to the original proceeding of statement of claim under judicial review act of 2016

   this is relation to falsified medical records defamation of character medical malipractise tort nuisincing harrassment breach of privacy breach of human rights breach of code of patients rights

   corruption ,conspiracy to commit murder or inflict grevious bodily harm false reports theft conspiracy to manufacture drugs encouragement of gang culture and influences forgery with a public document to cause pecuniary advantage or cause financial loss in new zealand and or outside New Zealand with or with out proving special damages is forgery 256 of the nz legislation crimes act also refer ss.264

   with holding the opportunity to present my case.with helding evidence that affects any decision that could ultimately persuade juriers or civilization at public interest.this is my testimony and will endouvour to the supreme court if having to as this will be for the court of appeal then ultimately the last court will be the supreme court of New Zealand and i will by then come with a following.

The notice of appeal was accompanied by 279 pages of documents, the vast majority of which comprise Mr Hill’s medical records, including his engagement with mental health services, but also screenshots of material from the internet and a page entitled Table of Statutes and Regulations.  Some further documents of this ilk were filed later on.

1. On 4 October 2023, Miller J made the following direction in respect of this appeal:

   In respect of the above appeal, Justice Miller has advised you do not have to file a compliant case on appeal.  The documents you have filed are sufficient for this purpose.

   His Honour has also asked the Registry to give you notice that the Court is considering striking out your appeal as an abuse of process pursuant to r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.  You are therefore invited to file written submissions addressing this.  The issue of strike out will then be determined by a divisional panel on the papers.

2. Mr Hill has filed submissions which were received on 26 October 2023.  In it he makes the following points:

   (a)his proceedings are “by no means” an abuse of the Court’s process;

   (b)he says he has been “denied help or advice around the circumstances of the nature of my case”;

   (c)he is aggrieved that the Courts are “constantly striking out the matter with lame excuses”;

   (d)he believes he is entitled to be heard and entitled to be compensated; and

   (e)he outlines his adverse personal circumstances in some detail and is aggrieved that because his proceedings are not to be served on any respondent, it appears as if it is “nobody’s fault or problem”.

The legal principles applying to strike out

1. Rule 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 set out this Court’s power to strike out or stay an appeal.  It provides as follows:

   44A     Court’s power to strike out or stay appeal

   (1)In addition to any express power in these rules to strike out an appeal, the Court may, on an interlocutory application or on its own initiative, make an order striking out or staying an appeal in whole or in part if—

   (a)the appellant is in continuing default in complying with any of these rules or with any procedural direction or order made by a Judge; or

   (b)the appellant has failed to prosecute the appeal with due diligence and dispatch; or

   (c)the appeal is frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court.

   (2)       The Court must—

   (a)give the appellant 10 working days’ prior notice of its intention to consider making an order under this rule; and

   (b)give ancillary directions as to the filing and service of any written submissions.

   (3)The Court may make an order under this rule on the papers or after an oral hearing, as the Court thinks fit.

   (4)The Court may order a stay under this rule on any terms that the Court thinks appropriate.

   (5)This rule also applies to cross-appeals.

2. It is the third ground, being that the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court, which is relevant in this case.  Having considered the notice of appeal and supporting documentation, the only clear ground of appeal we can discern is that the decision was made without hearing from Mr Hill.  That cannot be a ground of appeal in itself as r 5.35A and 5.35B expressly envisages that proceedings may be struck out without hearing from the appellant.  Furthermore, this appeal does not identify any error in the reasoning of Jagose J.  It simply repeats the diverse list of causes of action which were contained in his original statement of claim.  Mr Hill’s written submissions shed no light on his grounds of appeal.

3. Given Mr Hill’s notice of appeal does not identify an arguable ground of appeal, we are satisfied it is an abuse of the process of the Court and must be struck out.

Result

1. The notice of appeal dated 2 August 2023 is struck out pursuant to r 44A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.