Legal Research
Cases
Hudson v Attorney-General

Hudson v Attorney-General

Case [2024] NZHC 4000 20 December 2024

Jurisdiction

Administrative Law

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-124

[2024] NZHC 4000

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review of decisions made under the Corrections Act

2004 and the Corrections Regulations 2005

BETWEEN

STEPHEN THOMAS HUDSON

Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent (sued in respect of the Department of Corrections)

Hearing: 27 November 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person

S B McCusker and G P Fitzgerald for Respondent

Judgment:

20 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF McHERRON J

[1] Stephen Hudson is a low security prisoner serving a life sentence for murder at Whanganui Prison. In March 2023, he was transferred from a mainstream low security unit, Te Whakataa 1, to Southwood Unit. Southwood is an 80 bed “harmony unit” for low security and low-risk prisoners. Mr Hudson says that, in his 22 years in jail, he has never been in such a “privileged” unit.

[2] Unfortunately for him, Mr Hudson’s stay in Southwood was short-lived. On 12 June 2023 he was transferred to the Te Waimarie Unit (a high security and remand un`it also known as the East Wing), then to the Intervention and Support Unit, then to

HUDSON v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2024] NZHC 4000 [20 December 2024]

the Assessment Unit (a high security unit) and then, on 25 July 2024, to Te Whakataa 2, another low security unit.1

[3] The Department of Corrections (Corrections) transferred Mr Hudson out of Southwood due to tensions between him and other prisoners. In this proceeding, Mr Hudson seeks judicial review of the decisions relating to the evidential basis for his removal from Southwood Unit and Corrections’ refusal to move him back there.

[4] When Mr Hudson commenced this proceeding, on 22 January 2024, he was still housed in a high security unit. For that reason, much of his claim concerns the detriments he was facing as a low security prisoner being housed in a high security unit. That aspect of Mr Hudson’s claim no longer applies going forward given that he is now housed in a low security unit again. However, Mr Hudson remains discontented with Corrections’ refusal to let him return to Southwood, as well as with the discipline and review processes surrounding these decisions.

[5] Mr Hudson seeks 12 declarations in his statement of claim. In its response to Mr Hudson’s claim, Corrections treated these declarations as Mr Hudson’s grounds of review. In general, Mr Hudson considers that the following decisions were not made in a fair and reasonable way and that he did not have access to an effective complaints procedure in respect of them, contrary to the principle guiding the operation of the Corrections system set out in s 6(1)(f)(ii) of the Corrections Act 2004 (Act). In outline, Mr Hudson challenged his removal from Southwood and Corrections’ refusal to return him there, and inadequacies in the complaints and hearing processes for determining his guilt or innocence concerning allegations made against him by other…

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 Hudson v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Hudson v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 4000
Case: [2024] NZHC 4000
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephen Hudson, a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Department of Corrections (Corrections) relating to his transfer from Southwood Unit, a low security unit, and its refusal to allow him to return there. Hudson sought declaratory relief and damages, claiming Corrections breached the Corrections Act 2004, the Corrections Regulations 2005, and the principles of natural justice. Hudson alleged Corrections acted unlawfully in transferring him out of Southwood and in refusing his request to return there, and that Corrections breached its duty to act fairly and reasonably. He also alleged Corrections failed to provide an effective complaints procedure and breached his legitimate expectations.

McHerron J rejected all of Hudson’s claims. The Court found that Corrections was entitled to rely on the accounts of other prisoners, including Mr Moody, to decide to transfer Hudson from Southwood. Corrections was not required to micro-analyse CCTV footage or conduct a formal hearing process at which allegations could be tested before acting in respect of Hudson. The Court also found Corrections did not breach the principles of natural justice in its decision to transfer Hudson from Southwood. The Court rejected Hudson’s claims that Corrections breached the principles of natural justice in its handling of the misconduct charge against him and in its failure to proceed with a misconduct charge against Mr Moody. The Court held that Corrections adequately responded to Hudson’s complaints, and there was no breach of the duty to act fairly and reasonably or the principles of natural justice in Corrections’ failure to allow Hudson to complain to the Visiting Justice. The Court also found that Corrections did not breach any legal entitlements under the Act or Regulations by refusing to allow Hudson to return to Southwood.

The Court dismissed Hudson’s application for judicial review in its entirety and declined to award damages.

Orders