J, Compulsory Care Recipient v Attorney-General

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 130 OF THE INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (COMPULSORY CARE AND REHABILITATION) ACT 2003, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

NOTE: NO PUBLICATION OF THE YOUTH COURT PROCEEDINGS REFERRED TO IN THIS JUDGMENT IS PERMITTED UNDER S 438 OF THE ORANGA TAMARIKI ACT 1989, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS, AND WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PUBLICATIONS OF A BONA FIDE PROFESSIONAL OR TECHNICAL NATURE THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THE NAME(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON, OR THE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OR ANY PERSON HAVING THE CARE OF THE CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON, OR THE SCHOOL THAT THE CHILD OR YOUNG PERSON WAS OR IS ATTENDING. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 10/2024
[2024] NZSC 34

BETWEEN	J, COMPULSORY CARE RECIPIENT, BY HIS WELFARE GUARDIAN, T Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU Second Respondent FAMILY COURT AT MANUKAU Third Respondent CARE CO‑ORDINATOR Fourth Respondent CARE MANAGER Fifth Respondent

SC 11/2024
BETWEEN	J, COMPULSORY CARE RECIPIENT, BY HIS WELFARE GUARDIAN, T Applicant
AND	CARE CO‑ORDINATOR Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Miller JJ
Counsel:	A J Ellis for Applicant M J McKillop for First Respondent in SC 10/2024 S B O’Connor and A L Prestige for Fourth Respondent in SC 10/2024 and Respondent in SC 11/2024 No appearance for the Second, Third and Fifth Respondents in SC 10/2024
Judgment:	18 April 2024

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal are granted.

B Leave to appeal is granted (J v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 660).

CThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Leave is granted in general terms, but counsel’s argument will need to address the correctness of the approach adopted in RIDCA Central (Regional Intellectual Disability Care Agency) v VM [2011] NZCA 659, [2012] 1 NZLR 641; whether there have been breaches of J’s rights under ss 9, 19, 22 and 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of

Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights); and the consequences of any such breaches of the Bill of Rights if found.

Solicitors:
Nat Dunning Law, Wellington for Applicant
Te Tari Ture o te Karauna | Crown Law Office, Wellington for First Respondent in SC 10/2024
Luke Cunningham & Clere for Fourth Respondent in SC 10/2024 and Respondent in SC 11/2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by J, a compulsory care recipient, represented by his welfare guardian, against the Attorney-General, the District Court at Manukau, the Family Court at Manukau, the care coordinator, and the care manager. J challenged the decisions of these courts that upheld his compulsory care and rehabilitation under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The case involved complex issues surrounding the care and treatment of intellectually disabled individuals under the Act, and raised questions about the compatibility of these decisions with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals, specifically addressing the approach taken in the precedent case of RIDCA Central (Regional Intellectual Disability Care Agency) v VM [2011] NZCA 659, and whether there had been any breaches of J’s rights under sections 9, 19, 22, and 25(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court also considered the consequences of any such breaches. The Court granted leave to appeal and outlined the scope of the appeal, directing that the arguments must address the correctness of the approach in RIDCA Central, the potential breaches of the Bill of Rights, and the implications of such breaches.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appeals would be examined, focusing on the compatibility of the compulsory care measures with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the rights of intellectually disabled individuals under the Act are protected and that any compulsory care decisions align with the principles of the Bill of Rights. The appeal was granted, and the specific question for determination was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the appeals, with a focus on the compatibility of the care decisions with the Bill of Rights.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established