Huritu v Attorney-General - [2022] NZHC 1500

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

[2022] NZHC 1500

BETWEEN
LEON CHARLES HURITU AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Defendant

Hearing: 23 June 2022

Appearances:

J Mason and N Thrupp for Plaintiffs

D Jones and I McGlone for Defendants

Judgment:

27 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application to adjourn trial]

Introduction

[1] Sixteen former and current inmates have brought proceedings against the defendants asserting serious violations of their fundamental human rights. Their claims relate to a period when the plaintiffs were imprisoned at Waikeria Prison, until a riot1 and fire destroyed part of that prison, and their subsequent treatment in other Department of Corrections facilities. The principal relief they seek are damages.

[2] A three-week trial starting on 12 September 2022 has been allocated to deal with some of the claims of six of the plaintiffs. The remaining ten plaintiffs, and the

1 I use the term “riot” in this judgment in its colloquial rather than legal sense.

HURITU AND OTHERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1500 [27 June 2022]

balance of the claims of the six-September plaintiffs, will require a lengthy fixture at a later date.

[3] All 16 plaintiffs also face a criminal trial scheduled to commence in March 2023. The charges relate to their alleged involvement in the riot and, therefore, overlap to some extent with the events raised in their civil proceedings.

[4] The defendants have applied to adjourn the September fixture so that it can proceed after the criminal trial has been completed. In the alternative, they seek a modification to the timetable and a delay in the commencement of the hearing of two weeks. The September-plaintiffs oppose an adjournment. They say the issues for determination are urgent and the defendants are dragging their feet.

Procedural history

[5] Statements of claim by 16 plaintiffs were filed on 31 March 2021. Given their claims are closely related they have been case-managed together.

[6] Initially, the plaintiffs did not pursue a discovery order and instead made requests under the Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 2020 for material held by the defendants relevant to their civil claims.

[7] Unhappy with the outcome of the disclosure under those enactments, the plaintiffs requested a standard discovery order as recently as 30 March 2022.

[8] In a minute of 31 March 2022, Cull J directed the defendants to commence the process of providing unredacted confidential versions of documents which had been previously provided to the plaintiffs (in redacted form) pursuant to their Official Information and Privacy Act requests. Subsequently, on 1 April 2022, the plaintiffs sent a tailored discovery request to the defendants.

[9] By June this year, the defendants were increasingly in default of the discovery orders made by the Court. This was exacerbated by the unexpected loss of access to the document management programme the defendants had…

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 [2022] NZHC 1500
Case: [2022] NZHC 1500
Decision Date: 27 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with an application to adjourn a civil trial involving sixteen former and current inmates who alleged serious violations of their fundamental human rights while imprisoned at Waikeria Prison, and in subsequent Department of Corrections facilities. The plaintiffs sought damages for the alleged violations, which occurred over three periods: before a riot and fire at Waikeria Prison, during the riot, and after the plaintiffs were moved to other facilities. The defendants, the Attorney-General and the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, applied to adjourn the three-week trial scheduled for September 2022, which was set to address the claims of six of the plaintiffs. The defendants sought an adjournment so that the trial could proceed after their criminal trial, scheduled for March 2023, or alternatively, a two-week delay in the commencement of the September hearing.

The court considered three key issues: the risk of prejudice created by the civil proceeding occurring before the plaintiffs' criminal trial, whether the September claims were representative of the remaining claims, and whether the matters for determination in September were urgent. The court found that proceeding with the September hearing would likely prejudice the plaintiffs' fair trial interests, given the overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings. The court also found that the September claims were not representative and that proceeding with a limited trial would not resolve any of the proceedings for any of the plaintiffs. Finally, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims, as currently pleaded, were not urgent as they sought damages for past treatment rather than a challenge to their current conditions of detention.

The court concluded that it was no longer in the interests of justice to proceed with a hearing in September, as the pleadings had not been settled, discovery had not been completed, and the trial was less than three months away. The court ordered a twelve-week trial commencing on 14 August 2023 to determine all claims by all plaintiffs, and a further case management conference in late July for counsel to confer in relation to appropriate timetabling directions to ready the proceedings for trial. The court emphasised that no one was to blame for the current position, as the parties and the court had earnestly sought to preserve the three-week fixture allocated the previous year, despite the complexities and risks that existed.

Orders