Huritu v Attorney-General - [2023] NZHC 2173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2021-485-157 TO 166

CIV-2021-485-169 TO 174

[2023] NZHC 2173

BETWEEN
LEON HURITU AND OTHERS

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

AND

THE VISITING JUSTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Defendant

Hearing: 14 August 2023

Counsel:

J Mason and N Thrupp for Mr Huritu, Mr Ranapia, Mr Taite, Mr Cuff, Mr Paul, Mr Haere, Mr Tuilotolava, Mr Te Hau,

Mr Larkins, Mr Taipari, Mr Kiel and Mr Lote-Telea D Ewen for Mr Soames, Mr Tarau and Mr Manu

A Ngapo and G Whata for Mr Ronaki
D Jones and S Cvitanovich for Defendants

Judgment:

14 August 2023

Reissued:

15 August 2023

JUDGMENT (No 3) OF ISAC J

[Application for adjournment of trial]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs are all former inmates of Waikeria Prison. They have brought proceedings against the defendants under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 relating to their conditions of detention and treatment by Corrections both at Waikeria and subsequently.

HURITU & ORS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 2173 [14 August 2023]

[2] The proceedings were commenced by statements of claim filed on 31 March 2021. Originally a three-week trial commencing on 12 September 2022 was allocated to deal with only some of the claims of six of the plaintiffs. The remaining 10 plaintiffs and the balance of the other six plaintiffs’ claims would require a lengthy fixture at a later date. In a judgment of 27 June 2022,1 I vacated the September hearing, and instead set down all of the plaintiffs’ claims for a 12-week trial commencing on 14 August 2023—that is, today.

[3] By joint memorandum of counsel of 11 August 2023, the parties sought to vacate the trial following an agreement (referred to as an interim deed of settlement) [redacted – reference to terms of agreement].

[4] At a hearing this morning counsel further advised that the terms of settlement are such that the Court can be confident that there is no realistic prospect of the proceedings requiring a lengthy fixture to deal with contested issues of fact. In particular, the settlement agreement contains two clauses which the parties rely on to support their submission. The first of those clauses provides that:

[Redacted]

[5]The second clause is in these terms:

[Redacted]

[6] On this basis, all counsel supported an application to adjourn the trial to permit the [redacted] settlement process to be completed. The limited scope of further judicial intervention, according to counsel, would only arise should the parties require clarification or determination of a requirement for settlement that they had been unable to resolve for themselves.

[7] Based on these submissions, I was satisfied that the interests of justice supported adjournment of the trial. My reasons follow in this judgment.

1 Huritu v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 1500.

Applicable principles

[8]Rule 10.2 of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that:

10.2 Adjournment of trial

The court may, before or at the trial, if it…

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 Huritu v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Huritu v Attorney-General [2023] NZHC 2173
Case: [2023] NZHC 2173
Decision Date: 14 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Huritu and others versus the Attorney-General and the Visiting Justice of the Department of Corrections was brought before the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiffs, all former inmates of Waikeria Prison, sought relief under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, alleging infringements on their rights through their conditions of detention and treatment by Corrections. The defendants, the Attorney-General and the Visiting Justice, were the first and second respondents, respectively. The case was initially scheduled for a three-week trial in September 2022, but this was vacated, and a 12-week trial was set for August 2023. The parties subsequently entered into an interim deed of settlement, seeking an adjournment to allow the settlement process to conclude.

The legal issues before the court were whether the interests of justice supported the adjournment of the trial, given the settlement process. The court had to balance the efficient use of court resources against the need to resolve the proceedings and the right of the parties to a fair trial. The court also had to consider whether the application for adjournment was made reasonably and whether there was a realistic prospect of the proceedings requiring a lengthy fixture.

In determining the matter, the court considered the principles applicable to adjournments under Rule 10.2 of the High Court Rules 2016. The court found that the interests of justice were served by the adjournment, as the parties had agreed to settle and there was no realistic prospect of the proceedings requiring a lengthy fixture. The court also considered the right of the parties to a fair trial and the need for resolution of the proceedings. The court was satisfied that the adjournment would not prejudice the defendants and that the settlement process would likely conclude without the need for further judicial intervention.

The court adjourned the trial to permit the settlement process to be completed, subject to a case management conference in late February 2024 to confirm the completion of the settlement process and the discontinuance of the proceedings. The court also dismissed the claims of four plaintiffs for want of prosecution, finding that they had abandoned their claims and failed to comply with the court's directions. The court stayed the claim of one plaintiff, Christopher Ranapia, pending the resolution of related criminal proceedings. The court also made confidentiality orders to protect the terms of the interim settlement agreement.

In summary, the court granted the application for adjournment of the trial, finding that the interests of justice supported the adjournment and that the settlement process would likely conclude without the need for further judicial intervention. The court also dismissed the claims of four plaintiffs for want of prosecution and stayed the claim of one plaintiff pending the resolution of related criminal proceedings. The court made confidentiality orders to protect the terms of the interim settlement agreement.

Orders