Lawrence v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2023-485-807

[2025] NZHC 719

BETWEEN
ALEXANDER JOSAIAH THOMAS LAWRENCE

First Plaintiff

AND

LAURA DEARNE CASSIN

Second Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 17–19 March 2025

Appearances:

T D Clee for Plaintiffs

H W Ebersohn and O Kiel for Defendant

Judgment:

31 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs bring proceedings in the High Court relating to arrests made during the occupation of the grounds of Parliament in February 2022. The plaintiffs allege breaches of s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), as a result of the actions of Sergeant Yancy Hawkins. The plaintiffs seek:

(a)Public law damages of $50,000 each plaintiff.

(b)A declaration stating, “[t]he treatment of the first plaintiff by New Zealand Police at Parliament Grounds on 10 February 2022,

LAWRENCE & CASSIN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 719 [31 March 2025]

which included conducting a planking restraint on his head, was excessive and unnecessary on the part of Sergeant Hawkins. As a consequence, it amounted to a failure to treat the first plaintiff with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of his person and accordingly breached his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.”

(c)A declaration stating, “[t]he treatment of the second plaintiff by New Zealand Police at Parliament Grounds on 10 February 2022, which included kneeling on her neck, was excessive and unnecessary on the part of Sergeant Hawkins. As a consequence, it amounted to a failure to treat the second plaintiff with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of her person and accordingly breached her rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.”

[2] The plaintiffs amended their statement of claim at the end of the first morning of the hearing. They discontinued their proceedings against the then first defendant, Sergeant Yancy Hawkins and no question of costs arise. However, costs were not resolved when they discontinued against the then second defendant, former Commissioner of Police, Andrew Coster. By consent, the proceedings were amended to be a claim against the Attorney-General for NZBORA damages.

[3] The defendant now seeks 2B costs up to commencement of the hearing, prior to the plaintiffs amending their pleadings.

[4]The Court must determine the following issues:

(a)Whether there were any breaches of NZBORA.

(b)If there was any breaches of NZBORA, what remedies should follow.

(c)What costs should be awarded.

Background

[5] On 8 February 2022, various groups of people gathered on the grounds of Parliament (“the protest”). Although the many disparate groups involved in the protest had different concerns and agendas, a common feature was opposition to the lockdown policies of the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of protestors set up camp in Parliament grounds erecting tents and other structures and intended to occupy Parliament grounds for a significant period. Some of the protestors used aggressive and threatening language…

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 Lawrence v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 719
Case: [2025] NZHC 719
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Lawrence v Attorney-General involved plaintiffs alleging breaches of their rights under section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) due to actions by Sergeant Yancy Hawkins during their arrest at a protest in February 2022. The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations asserting that the treatment they received was excessive and breached their rights to be treated with humanity and respect. The defendant accepted that the plaintiffs' rights were breached but argued for minimal damages and no additional relief beyond declarations. The court found that the actions of Sergeant Hawkins constituted breaches of the plaintiffs' rights under s 23(5) of NZBORA. While acknowledging the defendant's submissions, the court awarded $7,000 to the first plaintiff and no additional damages to the second plaintiff, along with the requested declarations. The court also determined that costs should lie where they fell, reflecting the limited success of the plaintiffs after discontinuing claims against the original defendants.

Orders