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 [2025] NZSC 103
BETWEEN
J, COMPULSORY CARE RECIPIENT, BY HIS WELFARE GUARDIAN, T Appellant
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 Appellant
AND
CARE CO‑ORDINATOR Respondent
Hearing:
20–21 August 2024
Court:
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:
A J Ellis and G K Edgeler for Appellant K Laurenson, M J McKillop and R E R Gavey for First and Fourth Respondents in SC 10/2024 and Respondent in SC 11/2024 No appearance for Second, Third and Fifth Respondents in SC 10/2024 A S Butler KC and D Qiu for IHC New Zealand Incorporated as Intervener D T Haradasa and B J Peck for Te Kāhui Tika Tangata | Human Rights Commission as Intervener
Judgment:
15 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appeal is allowed in part. The approach of the Court of Appeal to s 85 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was incorrect. The Family Court, in considering this matter in the context of a review under Part 6 of the Act, is to address J’s condition and status in accordance with our approach to s 85.
BThe further evidence described below at [156] is admitted.
DThe judgment of this Court of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, Tv Attorney‑General[2024] NZSC 34) is reissued accordingly.
This summary of the Court’s reasons on the principal issues must be read alongside the full reasons.
Background
The appellant, J, is a…
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 J v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
J v Attorney-General [2025] NZSC 103
Case
[2025] NZSC 103
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal from J, a care recipient detained under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, who challenged the validity of his compulsory care orders. J, supported by his welfare guardian, argued that his detention was arbitrary and constituted unlawful discrimination based on his intellectual disability. The Supreme Court allowed J's appeal in part, finding that the Court of Appeal's approach to the extension of J's compulsory care order under s 85 of the Act was incorrect. The Court held that the Family Court, in considering the matter in the context of a review under Part 6 of the Act, is to assess J's condition and status in accordance with the approach to s 85 set out in the reasons of Ellen France and Miller JJ, which Winkelmann CJ agreed with. The Court held that the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in RIDCA v VM was largely incorrect and should be revisited. The Court outlined a new approach to s 85, which requires the Family Court to undertake an inquiry to determine whether the impact of continued detention on the care recipient's liberty interests remains proportionate to the legitimate aims of the detention under the Act. The Court held that the correct approach to s 85 involves considering factors such as the nature of the initial offending, the care recipient's rehabilitative prospects, the present risk posed by the care recipient, and the length of time the care recipient has been under care. The Court held that the approach in RIDCA v VM was not consistent with the protection from arbitrary detention in s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or the protection from discrimination in s 19 of the Act. The Court found that the Family Court must consider whether ongoing detention is proportionate to its legitimate aims, being protection of the health, safety and rights of the care recipient, and the interests of the community. The Court held that the Family Court must also consider the impact of the initial or index offending, the care recipient's rehabilitative prospects, and the approach to risk assessment. The Court held that the Family Court must ensure that any conflict between the care recipient's rights and the legitimate aims of detention is resolved in a manner that maintains proportionality. The Court held that the relief sought by J, his immediate release into the community, was highly problematic and irresponsible. The Court held that the Family Court's decision to extend J's compulsory care order was the only demonstrated, lawful, and available means of appropriately balancing the matters set out in s 11 of the Act, in accordance with s 85. The Court held that the extension of J's compulsory care order was not arbitrary in terms of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or disproportionately severe in terms of s 9 of the Act. The Court held that the state had established justification for the limits imposed on J's liberty, as continued care under the present order was the only realistic response to J's unusual presentation of risks. The Court held that the extension of J's compulsory care order was the only demonstrated, lawful, and available means of appropriately balancing the matters set out in s 11 of the Act, in accordance with s 85. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed on the basis that the extension of J's compulsory care order was the only demonstrated, lawful, and available means of appropriately balancing the matters set out in s 11 of the Act, in accordance with s 85.