Keats v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 1349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-000322

[2025] NZHC 1349

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for review

BETWEEN

DWAYNE DOUGLAS KEATS

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

AND

THE VISITING JUSTICE AT ROLLESTON PRISON

Second Respondent

Hearing: 17 February 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person (via AVL)

D P Neild for First Respondent (via AVL)

Judgment:

27 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 May 2025 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date……………

KEATS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1349 [27 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] Mr Keats is a serving prisoner at Rolleston Prison. He was charged with, and subsequently pleaded guilty to, an offence against prison discipline: disfiguring prison property, having painted a benchtop without permission.1 Pending the disciplinary hearing Mr Keats was stood down from his employment in the unit.

[2] The adjudicator imposed a penalty of seven days’ loss of privileges and ordered Mr Keats to pay $25 in reparation. On appeal, the Visiting Justice quashed the loss of privileges but doubled the order for reparation.

[3] Mr Keats applies to this Court for judicial review. He claims that the disciplinary charge was not laid “promptly” as required under the Corrections Act 2004 (the Act) and that he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence or access legal advice.

[4] But his principal complaint arises from the employment stand down. Mr Keats argues this amounted to punishment in breach of the Act, the Corrections Regulations 2005 (Regulations) or the Prison Operations Manual (POM), the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and various international instruments. He also asserts that Corrections has discriminated against him by differential treatment of other prisoners in respect of alleged misconduct,2 and that an officer spoke to him in a manner likely to provoke a prisoner in breach of s 84(1) of the Corrections Act 2004.3

[5] The first respondent, opposing, argues there has been no breach of Mr Keats’ rights and although loss of employment was a consequence of Mr Keats’ misconduct charge, it was not a punishment. In that aspect the claim is not justiciable; it engages precisely the kind of operational decision which the senior courts have recognised is

1      Corrections Act 2004, s 128(1)(h) [offence against discipline].
2      Said to be in breach of the NZBORA; the Crimes of Torture Act 1989, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Human Rights Act 1993; and the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3      Mr Keats’ evidence is that a named officer on 26 July 2024 commented to Mr Keats that “it” (which I infer to be a reference to re-employment of other prisoners during the time in which   Mr Keats remains not further employed in the unit) is [Mr Keats’ fault] for bringing the matter to 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 Keats v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Keats v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 1349
Case: [2025] NZHC 1349
Decision Date: 27 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Keats v Attorney-General is an application for judicial review brought by a serving prisoner, Mr Keats, against the Attorney-General and the visiting justice of Rolleston Prison. Mr Keats is challenging a decision to terminate his employment as a result of a disciplinary charge for painting a bench in his cell. He claims the charge was not laid promptly, that he was not given sufficient time to prepare his defence or to obtain legal advice, and that the loss of his employment was a breach of his rights. The court considered whether the charge was laid promptly, whether Mr Keats had sufficient time to prepare his defence and to contact a legal adviser, and whether the decision to terminate Mr Keats' employment was open to Corrections.

The court found that the charge was laid promptly, as it was within the timeframe specified in the regulations. Mr Keats was given sufficient time to prepare his defence, as the charge was straightforward and he was able to plead guilty and articulate his argument at the hearing. The court also found that Mr Keats did not seek an adjournment to obtain legal advice, but even if he had, there was sufficient time to do so. The decision to terminate Mr Keats' employment was not amenable to judicial review, as it was within Corrections' operational purview and related to the management of prisoners. The court dismissed all of Mr Keats' claims and declined his application for judicial review.

Orders