Holland v New Zealand Parole Board

[2014] NZHC 1530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1644 [2014] NZHC 1530

BETWEEN

GLENN RODERICK HOLLAND

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	G R Holland in person
Judgment:	3 July 2014

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for review of Registrar's decision]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 July 2014 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

HOLLAND v NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD [2014] NZHC 1530 [3 July 2014]

[1]      I have been asked to review the Registrar’s decision declining to receive Mr

Holland’s handwritten without notice application dated 23 April 2014.

[2]      The Registrar rejected Mr Holland’s application on the basis that it comprised both an application for judicial review and a without notice application for interim relief.  The reasons for the Registrar’s rejection of the documents were stated in a letter dated 26 May 2014 as follows:

(a)       No fee or fee waiver was filed with the application.

(b)The Registrar has not granted leave under r 5.2 of the High Court Rules (HCR) to allow the handwritten application to be accepted as required by r 5.4.

(c)       No notice of proceeding was received as required under r 5.22 (HCR).

[3]      Having considered the handwritten documents Mr Holland has filed, it is apparent that he has not filed a substantive application for judicial review.  Rather, he has  filed  a  document  in  letter  form  headed  “Proposed  application  for  judicial review”.

[4]      It is not possible for this Court to grant interim relief unless a substantive application for review has first been filed.  The interim relief that Mr Holland seeks is an order requiring the Department of Corrections to provide him access with computer facilities so as to permit him to produce typewritten documents for filing in this Court.  Mr Holland is frustrated because, in the absence of being permitted to have access to a computer, he is unable to formulate his application for judicial review and supporting documents in a manner that complies with the High Court Rules.

[5]      I  direct  that  the  Registrar  is  to  accept  handwritten  documents  from  Mr Holland.  It will be necessary, however, for Mr Holland to file a statement of claim setting out the basis of the substantive review that he seeks.  Mr Holland will also

need to file a notice of proceeding in proper form.   The Registrar is to send Mr

Holland a sample of that document for his assistance, as well as a fee waiver form.

[6]      Once these documents have been returned, the Registrar should either accept them or refer them to the Duty Judge for further consideration.

Lang J

Copy to: Applicant