Hudson v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 3231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2020-485-203

[2020] NZHC 3231

UNDER Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for judicial review, the Corrections Act 2004, the Corrections Regulations 2005 and the Prison Operation Manual

BETWEEN

STEPHEN THOMAS HUDSON

Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(sued in respect of the Department of Corrections)

First Respondent

THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTORATE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 9 November 2020

Appearances:

Mr Hudson in person (by AVL link) S B McCusker for the Respondents

Judgment:

8 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Introduction

[1] In these proceedings, the plaintiff, Mr Hudson, who is a prisoner at Rimutaka Prison, seeks judicial review arising from decisions made by the Department of Corrections (the Department), individual staff members of the Department and the Prison Inspectorate, on and following 4 September 2019.

HUDSON v A-G [2020] NZHC 3231 [8 December 2020]

[2] The applicant says that on 4 September 2019 he became aware that the access of Unit 8 prisoners to their common areas had been changed from unlock at 8:00 am to unlock at 1:00 pm. (“Common areas” encompass the dining room, gym and recreation room, but what is at issue in this case is the access to the gym). As detailed later in this judgment Mr Hudson alleges that the decision was ultra vires the Corrections Act 2004 (the Act), including that the decision was imposed as a punishment on prisoners; and it was a breach of minimum entitlements as provided for in ss 69 and 70 of the Act. Mr Hudson’s claim also relates to the way in which his complaint about the 4 September event was subsequently treated, both by Corrections staff members and by the Office of the Prison Inspectorate.

[3] Mr Hudson has filed three affidavits in support of his application. He has also filed an affidavit from another serving prisoner in Unit 8 in support of the application. In response, the respondents have filed affidavits from each of Principal Corrections Officer Rakai Tawhiwhirangi; Senior Corrections Officer John Gavin Derwin; Residential Manager Taunu Taepa; Custodial Systems Manager Simon George Hicks and Principal Inspector for the Office of the Inspectorate, Andrew David Fitzharris.

Amended statement of claim

[4] Mr Hudson filed a statement of claim dated 4 May 2020 and the respondents responded to that claim by way of statement of defence dated 26 June 2020.

[5] Subsequently, Mr Hudson has sought to file an amended statement of claim, dated 28 October 2020. As he explains in his memorandum of 6 November 2020, Mr Hudson was not aware that the Court’s leave was required to file an amended statement of claim and, on becoming aware of that requirement, he sought leave to do so pursuant to r 7.7(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules). The respondents opposed the filing of the amended statement of claim, noting that some of the new allegations raised in the amended claim require…

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 [2020] NZHC 3231
Case: [2020] NZHC 3231
Decision Date: 8 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephen Thomas Hudson, a prisoner at Rimutaka Prison, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Department of Corrections, individual staff members of the Department and the Prison Inspectorate, on and following 4 September 2019. Hudson argued that the decisions were ultra vires the Corrections Act 2004, breached minimum entitlements as provided for in ss 69 and 70 of the Act, and were a breach of the duty of care to the prisoners in unit-8. Hudson also alleged that his complaint about the 4 September event was not treated fairly. The Court dismissed Hudson's application for judicial review. The Court found that the changes in unlock hours were standard operational matters and not amenable to judicial review. The Court found that the change to the unlock hours was effective for only one day and therefore the issue was moot. The Court also found that there was no breach of any minimum entitlement or another provision under the Act. The Court found that the alteration in unlock hours was not a penalty of forfeiture or suspension of privileges. The Court found that there was no breach of the complaints process or the role of the Office of the Prison Inspectorate. The Court dismissed all of Hudson's claims. The Court found that costs would be awarded in favour of the respondents as the successful parties. However, given Hudson's circumstances as a prisoner, and that he had identified an issue which, although not amenable to review in this proceeding, may raise a question for the Department as to its management of gym access for working prisoners, the Court was not inclined to make a costs order.

Orders