Lee v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2025] NZHC 2157

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-595

[2025] NZHC 2157

BETWEEN

LANCE MICHAEL LEE

Applicant

AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

HEALTH CENTRE MANAGER AT ROLLESTON PRISON

Second Respondent

Hearing:

30 July 2025

Appearances:

Appellant in Person

W S Taffs for Respondent

Judgment:

4 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:     .

LANCE MICHAEL LEE v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2025] NZHC 2157 [4 August 2025]

[1]    The appellant, Lance Michael Lee, is currently an inmate at Rolleston Prison. He has applied to judicially review decisions regarding his medical care, including the prescription of medication for insomnia and back/side pain, and the provision of batteries for his hearing aids. He claims those decisions were made in breach of rights affirmed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA)1 and statutory duties owed to him under the Corrections Act 2004 (the Act) and its regulations.2 Mr Lee is seeking declarations in respect of these alleged breaches and orders that he be prescribed medications and provided hearing aid batteries free of charge.

[2]    The respondents, the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (the Chief Executive) and the Health Centre Manager at Rolleston Prison (together Corrections) oppose the judicial review application on the basis prescription decisions made by medical practitioners are not amenable to review, and that neither those decisions, nor the provision of free hearing aid batteries, were unreasonable or otherwise give rise to justifiable grounds for review.

Failure to prescribe for chronic insomnia and back pain

Background

[3]    Mr Lee first presented with insomnia while in Corrections’ custody in August 2020. The medical officer who saw Mr Lee noted his insomnia was “situational” because it related to various sources of stress he was experiencing at that time. He was not identified as having a mood disorder, but did have chronic shoulder pain for which he was prescribed Amitriptyline, which had some sedative side effects. This medication was ineffective and discontinued in December 2020. At that time, he was sent a letter explaining that chronic insomnia, especially “situational” insomnia, is not a problem fixed with medication. He was referred to counselling as a more appropriate way to manage his sleep difficulty.

[4]    Corrections’ medical records for Mr Lee show that in early 2021 it was noted by a medical officer that sleeping tablets are not “indicated” for sleep disorders, but would be prescribed “for mood if there was a clinical indication”. Mr Lee was seen

1      New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 9, 19 and 23(5).

2      Corrections Act 2004, s 75; and Corrections Regulations 2005, regs 72 and 73.

on 17 February 2021 by Dr Worobiec. Mr Lee presented with developing signs and symptoms of depression, in respect of which Mirtazapine was prescribed, which has some sedating side effects.

[5]    In May 2022, Dr Worobiec again saw Mr Lee and explained to him that he could offer no medications for the treatment of chronic insomnia. In September the following year, Mr Lee stopped the Mirtazapine because it was making him drowsy during the day. The issue of Mr Lee’s chronic insomnia was again raised in February 2024, when he requested Mirtazapine be re-prescribed, and that was done by one of the medical officers.

[6]    Mr Lee requested melatonin in mid-March, but it was not funded. Mr Lee discontinued all his night medications in late March.   Over April and May 2024,   Mr Lee periodically resumed using melatonin, which he funded himself. In early July 2024, a medical officer, at Mr Lee’s request, restarted him on Mirtazapine. However, that doctor made a note the following month in Mr Lee’s records, that reads:

As I discussed last time we do not prescribe for sleep, it is against our prescribing guidelines. I however made an exception to use mirtazapine as this seemed to be causing a lot of distress. After reconsideration I should not have prescribed this for sleep. It does not seem to be helping, rather causing more issues, so I recommend we cease this and following prescribing guidelines – ie do not prescribe for sleep.

[7]    Later that month, Dr Worobiec recorded that he concurred with the medical officer’s conclusion that medication was not appropriate for chronic insomnia treatment, in accordance with the Safer Prescribing Guidelines.3 Mr Lee was provided with information regarding cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia.

[8]    In early October, after the doctors refused to prescribe him medication for his chronic insomnia, Mr Lee sent a letter to Ms Bei Chen, Rolleston Prison’s Health Centre Manager, advising of his intention to file legal proceedings should he not be prescribed specific sleeping and pain medication. Ms Chen, who had not previously been involved in Mr Lee’s care, met with him. He outlined his concerns to her and explained why he wished to receive specific medications. Ms Chen advised that, as a

3      Department of Corrections Safer Prescribing Guidelines (January 2025).

nurse, she could not prescribe medications, and that nursing staff in the prison health centre would be guided by the doctors on such issues. Ms Chen assessed the pain in Mr Lee’s lower back and gave him a copy of the Safer Prescribing Guidelines’ section on the treatment of insomnia and advised she would refer the matter to a doctor for review and recommendations.

[9]    On 16 October, Ms Chen emailed Dr Worobiec about Mr Lee’s request. He replied the same day, declining Mr Lee’s request for a prescription. Dr Worobiec advised:

Chronic insomnia--unfortunately, there is no medication in New Zealand indicated for chronic insomnia. The only thing that has been shown useful for chronic insomnia is CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). A Workbook is attached.

Chronic low back pain--the treatment for this involved brufen type medications, paracetamol and exercise. Info off Health Pathways is attached.

[10]Dr Worobiec’s response was relayed to Mr Lee.

Mr Lee’s complaint

[11]   Mr Lee does not agree with the decisions not to prescribe him medication for his insomnia. He is currently not on any medication for that complaint. Mr Lee does receive ibuprofen and paracetamol twice daily for lower back/side pain relief, but says that is not very effective. He maintains he is in dire need of medication to numb and alleviate his lower back pain, and that insomnia is a very serious illness that can lead to severe mental health consequences. He maintains antipsychotics and benzodiazepines are the appropriate medications to treat his insomnia. He claims that, as person with a history of methamphetamine addiction, he is “prone” to brain damage, and that prisoners detained by Corrections diagnosed with insomnia, most of whom have a history of drug and substance abuse, are prescribed those drugs for their illness.

[12]   Mr Lee claims he is a vulnerable person while in the custody of Corrections who is unable to provide medical care for himself, and that the refusal to provide him with the prescription medicines he identifies to treat his insomnia and back/side pain is in breach of his rights and the statutory duties he is owed. He maintains the decisions made not to provide him with medication are unlawful. He identified s 9 of NZBORA,

being the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment, and s 23(5) of NZBORA, which provides that everyone deprived of liberty shall have the right to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the person, as having been breached. He also pleads, in support of his application for review, s 5(1)(a) of the Act, which states that a purpose of the corrections system is to ensure custodial sentences are administered in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner. In particular, he cites s 75 of the Act, which he maintains has been breached:

75       Medical treatment and standard of health care

(1)A prisoner is entitled to receive medical treatment that is reasonably necessary.

(2)The standard of health care that is available to prisoners in a prison must be reasonably equivalent to the standard of health care available to the public.

[13]   Mr Lee also points to the duties of the Chief Executive, pursuant to reg 72 of the Corrections Regulations 2005, to provide adequately for the health needs of prisoners, to meet those needs properly and to maintain the physical and mental health of prisoners to a satisfactory standard. In respect of the duties of the health centre manager, Mr Lee references reg 73, which requires that office holder to take all practicable steps to maintain the physical and mental health of prisoners to a satisfactory standard, to advise the Chief Executive of what is required to adequately meet prisoners’ health needs, and ensure that medicine is administered to a prisoner in accordance with those needs.

Relevant principles

[14]   Judicial review engages the supervisory function of the Court to ensure public power is exercised according to the law.4 Its jurisdiction is to rule on the legality of public acts. This is reflected in the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 (the JRPA), which provides the procedural means by which the Court’s inherent jurisdiction is exercised and applications for judicial review are determined. In exercising that function, the Court is primarily concerned with examining the process by which the

4      Mercury Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand [1994] 2 NZLR 385 (PC).

decision was made and procedural compliance, rather than the substance of the decision itself.5

[15]   To the extent the merits of a decision are sought to be put in issue, the applicant must demonstrate that the decision is unreasonable in the sense it is without justification, unsupportable or disproportionate in its outcome when regard is had to the available information and the weighing of competing factors.6 However, it is also necessary that the decision be one that is capable of being subject to the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

[16]   The JRPA provides for procedures which enable the review of the exercise, failure to exercise, or purported or proposed exercise of the statutory power. The meaning of statutory power is set out in s 5 of the JRPA, which provides:

5        Meaning of statutory power

(1)In this Act, statutory power means a power or right to do any thing that is specified in subsection (2) and that is conferred by or under—

(a)any Act; or

(b)the constitution or other instrument of incorporation, rules, or bylaws of any body corporate.

(2)The things referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)to make any secondary legislation; or

(b)to exercise a statutory power of decision; or

(c)to require any person to do or refrain from doing anything that, but for such requirement, the person would not be required by law to do or refrain from doing; or

(d)to do anything that would, but for such power or right, be a breach of the legal rights of any person; or

(e)to make any investigation or inquiry into the rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, or liabilities of any person.

5      Aorangi School Board of Trustees v Ministry of Education [2010] NZAR 132 (HC) at [8].

6      Watson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2015] NZHC 1227 at [25]–[30], citing Electoral Commission v Cameron [1997] 2 NZLR 421 (CA) at 433; C v Medical Council of  New Zealand [2013] NZHC 825, [2013] NZAR 712; Shaw v Attorney-General (No 2) [2003] NZAR 216 (HC); and Lab Tests Auckland Ltd v Auckland District Health Board [2009] 1 NZLR 776 (CA) at [386].

[17]   The meaning of statutory power of decision, which is referred to in s 5(2)(b), is provided by s 4 of the JRPA:

4        Interpretation

…

statutory power of decision means a power or right conferred by or under any Act, or by or under the constitution or other instrument of incorporation, rules, or bylaws of any body corporate, to make a decision deciding or prescribing or affecting—

(a)the rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties, or liabilities of any person; or

(b)the eligibility of any person to receive, or to continue to receive, a benefit or licence, whether that person is legally entitled to it or not.

[18]   Mr Lee does not identify a reviewable exercise, failure to exercise, or a proposed or purported exercise of a statutory power either by the Chief Executive, the Health Centre Manager, or other employees of Corrections, in respect of this aspect of his challenge relating to the non-prescribing of certain medications. He points to the decision of Dr Worobiec to decline to prescribe him certain drugs, in particular antipsychotics and benzodiazepines for his insomnia and prescription medications for his lower back pain. Essentially, Mr Lee disagrees with the doctor’s professional opinion regarding medication that may appropriately be prescribed for chronic insomnia and for his back pain.

[19]   This issue arose in MacMillan v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, where Woolford J held that a clinical decision in relation to a prescription made by an independent medical doctor was not a decision that derives from a statutory power, nor is it a public decision, even when made in a prison setting that is amenable to judicial review.7 In reaching that decision, the Judge referred to an earlier judgment of this Court, Shortland v Northland Health Ltd (No 1), where Salmon J held that clinical decisions of doctors made in good faith are not reviewable:8

There is no suggestion that the respondent's medical staff are acting in bad faith. That being the case, they must be allowed to act in accordance with their clinical judgment. It is totally inappropriate for the Court to attempt to direct

7      MacMillan v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2021] NZHC 3406 at [16].

8      Shortland v Northland Health Ltd (No 1) HC Auckland M75/97, 20 September 1997, at 13.

a doctor as to what treatment should be given to a patient. It must be remembered that the respondent is not refusing to treat this patient rather, it is exercising a professional judgment through its medical staff as to the appropriate treatment to adopt.

[20]   In the present case, the decision of Dr Worobiec and other medical staff to decline to prescribe Mr Lee prescription medicines, including the antipsychotics and benzodiazepines which Mr Lee maintains are appropriate to treat his condition, is based on that medical practitioner’s clinical assessment and understanding of best practice both within the prison environment and in the wider community. The medical evidence before me is that no medications in this country are indicated for long term use to treat chronic insomnia. Moreover, that benzodiazepines and antipsychotic medications are not indicated to manage that condition.

[21]   I accept the submission made by Mr Taffs, on behalf of Corrections, that there is no tenable basis upon which to conclude that either Dr Worobiec or Ms Chen, or any member of Corrections staff have acted in bad faith in respect of decisions relating to Mr Lee’s medical care. The fact he disagrees with the opinion of the medical professionals, including in particular Dr Worobiec, does not provide a basis upon which this Court could conclude there has been any failure or breach on the part of Corrections to comply with its statutory duties to provide satisfactory medical treatment.

[22]   The pleaded relief Mr Lee seeks from the Court, in the form of “immediate approval of insomnia and back pain medication”, would require the Court to stray into an assessment of the merits of a specialist field of expertise, and require medical professionals to be compelled to treat patients in a manner inconsistent with their own clinical judgement. Such an outcome starkly illustrates how prescription decisions by medical practitioners are not amenable to review in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure public acts are lawful.

Appropriateness and standard of treatment

[23]   Mr Lee sought to support his challenge to the medical decision to decline to prescribe him controlled medications with certain complaints regarding the conduct and approach taken by Dr Worobiec and Ms Chen to his medical treatment, which he

submitted was in breach of NZBORA and other statutory requirements. That criticism included what Mr Lee claimed was the discriminatory and inconsistent way he was being treated in comparison to other inmates who are prescribed with medication for the treatment of their medical condition, and in particular those with mental health issues.

[24]   Mr Lee was critical of Dr Worobiec’s expertise to assess his psychiatric state and associated need for prescribed medicines. In furtherance of Mr Lee’s position, he obtained affidavits from two inmates who are prescribed prescription drugs, which he submits include Quetiapine for insomnia and other restricted medications for the treatment of back pain.

[25]   In response to the concerns that Mr Lee has raised that he is not receiving the standard of medical treatment he would otherwise be able to obtain in the community, and is being discriminated against by not being prescribed certain medications to assist with his chronic insomnia and ongoing back pain, evidence was filed by Corrections explaining why medications are not prescribed for chronic insomnia.

[26]   Dr Worobiec advised there are no medications in this country that are indicated for long-term use to treat insomnia. If medications are prescribed, they are to be accompanied by an “exit strategy” agreed on from the beginning of their use, but that “sleeping pills” are not indicated for the treatment of chronic insomnia because the body quickly becomes accustomed to their sedative effect and they lose their efficacy. It was also noted that sleep medications have high abuse potential and unwanted side effects.

[27]   In relation to the use of opioid pain relief for chronic pain, Dr Worobiec’s evidence, in respect of which he references the Corrections guidance document for clinicians prescribing medications in the New Zealand prison environment, Safer Prescribing Guidelines, is that medications are no better than placebos over the longer term and that opioids, anticonvulsants and cannabis products are not indicated for chronic non-malignant, non-neuropathic pain because the potential for harm outweighs benefit in the prison setting.

[28]   The prescribing guidelines state “… there is no compelling evidence that opioids are effective for the management of chronic primary pain”, but are associated with an increased risk of adverse effects, including dependence, tolerance and opioid induced hyperalgesia. It is noted that there is a lack of evidence to support the use of NSAIDs,9 paracetamol, benzodiazepines, opioids, SSRIs,10 or TCAs,11 gabapentinoids, muscle relaxants or cannabis products for chronic low back pain with or without sciatica.

[29]   Dr Worobiec referred to medications often being diverted in prison from their intended purposes or patients and misused. That risk is exacerbated by the prevalence of substance abuse and mental illness within the prison population. Notwithstanding those additional concerns, Dr Worobiec deposed that, because neither Mr Lee’s insomnia nor pain are acute but are chronic conditions, it is not appropriate nor effective to prescribe him with the medications he seeks. Importantly, he deposed that his decisions to decline prescriptions medicines is consistent with the approach that would be taken by medical practitioners in the community, and that Mr Lee is not being treated differently because he is an inmate.

[30]   As noted, Mr Lee sought to place reliance on the way two other inmates had been prescribed medications. Dr Worobiec has reviewed those persons’ medical records and confirmed their conditions are not the same as Mr Lee’s. Notably, one of those inmates has been diagnosed with a mood disorder or PTSD, neither of which Mr Lee suffers from. It is noted that medication can be helpful for treating underlying mood disorders and PTSD but, in the absence of such conditions, medication has not been shown to be effective. The other inmate is under the care of forensic psychiatry, who manage his medication for that purpose. It is also observed that one of those persons also appears to have a predisposing genetic condition known to cause chronic back pain.

[31]   Dr Worobiec does not consider there is any inconsistency between the approach taken in respect of those persons, when regard is had to their particular

9      Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

10     Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.

11     Tricyclic antidepressants.

medical difficulties, and the prescribing decisions made in respect of Mr Lee. None of those inmates are receiving medication of the kind sought by Mr Lee to treat either chronic insomnia or chronic pain. Insofar as those persons have been prescribed Quetiapine, Dr Worobiec deposed there is only limited evidence to support its use for the treatment of insomnia, and it is not approved for this indication. Notably, Quetiapine is a highly sought after medication of abuse.

[32]   As will be apparent from this review of the matters raised by Mr Lee in contesting the clinical decisions made in respect of his medical complaints, they necessarily involve an evaluation of the merits of the responsible doctor’s treatment decisions and professional opinion. This serves to illustrate how such matters are not amenable to judicial oversight. However, insofar as Mr Lee’s complaint extends to the quality and adequacy of the provision of medical services to him in the prison environment, I do not consider that critique is sustainable.

[33]   Ms Chen, upon receiving Mr Lee’s letter in early October, met with him in her capacity as the head of the prison’s health centre. Ms Chen is a qualified nurse who leads 16 staff, 11 of whom are full-time nurses. She spoke to Mr Lee about his medical history and why he wanted sleeping pills. After informing him that she was not qualified to prescribe the medication he sought, she advised she would refer the matter to a doctor, and duly did so. It was in response to Ms Chen’s enquiry that Dr Worobiec confirmed his position regarding prescribing medication for Mr Lee’s medical complaints, which has led to the current proceeding. It is not apparent that Mr Lee has not been able to access appropriate medical services, or that his medical concerns have not been communicated and considered by appropriate professional staff, rather it is a case of Mr Lee not agreeing with a clinician’s medical opinion regarding the appropriateness of prescribing the drugs he seeks.

Hearing aid batteries

Mr Lee’s complaint

[34]   Mr Lee has a hearing impairment for which he uses hearing aids. Mr Lee has pleaded that he is entitled to be supplied with batteries for his hearing aids by Corrections free of charge, and that, in October 2024, it unlawfully refused to provide

him with those items on that basis. In his statement of claim and written submissions, Mr Lee sought to rely on s 45A of the Act12 in support of his submission that hearing aid batteries must be made available to an inmate in need free of charge. However, that provision relates to rules about authorised property in respect of which prisoners may be issued or allowed to keep in their cells. In any event, Mr Lee advises that, in November 2023, while in Hawke’s Bay Prison, he was issued with a hearing aid battery without charge following the provision of a medical chit. At Rolleston Prison he has been advised he must pay for his own hearing aid batteries. He maintains that requirement is unlawful.

[35]   Mr Lee submitted that all prisoners within New Zealand are governed by the same legislation and that prisons must operate in accordance with the same prison manual. He argued that hearing aid batteries should be made available to inmates throughout the country on the same basis in order to adequately meet their care and welfare needs, and that  Rolleston Prison’s policy in this regard is discriminatory.  Mr Lee notes that at both Rolleston Prison and other prisons batteries are provided to inmates for television remote controls without charge, and that it is inconsistent not to provide batteries for hearing aids on the same basis when they are needed for medical reasons.

Corrections’ response

[36]   Corrections’ policy regarding the provision of hearing aids to prisoners is that it will contribute up to $3,000 for the purchase of hearing aids if the person is not otherwise covered by Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Mr Lee’s hearing aids are not funded by ACC. In the community, a person can access funding support via various organisations, including the Ministry of Health, but only up to $511.11 per hearing aid, or via ACC. However, the Ministry of Health’s hearing aid support scheme does not extend to the funding of batteries, which are an individual’s responsibility.13

12     Pursuant to which Department of Corrections Authorised Property Rules (7 June 2024) sch  1,  cl 1.1 provides that hearing aid batteries are permitted on reception.

13     Ministry of Health, Guide to Getting Hearing Aids, Hearing Aid Subsidy Scheme (2016), at 9.

[37]   Each prison health centre operates independently to manage its own budgets and processes by which they procure medical consumables such as hearing aid batteries. The respective health centre managers are responsible for ensuring prisoners have access to hearing aid batteries as required. Where a prisoner does not have funds to pay for the batteries they will be provided to them free of charge. At Rolleston Prison when hearing aid batteries are provided to a prisoner a payment plan will be put in place. Batteries are issued in a “card” of six individual battery units. Mr Lee was provided with a pack of batteries at a cost of $5 on 10 October 2024.

[38]   At Rolleston Prison, as was the case with Mr Lee, a pack of batteries is provided or sold to prisoners at a discounted rate. Prisoners are expected to use available funds in their prison trust account (which can hold a maximum of $200) to make such purchases. Ms Chen deposed that payment is sought in order to encourage patients to take self-responsibility for their care and to look after their property. It is said that putting in place a payment plan for the purchase of batteries reflects the situation that would apply in the community, where persons without ACC funding would be required to pay for their own hearing aid batteries.

[39]   Ms Chen informed that the terms of any payment plan will depend on the financial position of the prisoner. Where a prisoner has no access to funds and is not employed within the prison, a payment assistance form will be completed to allow the inmate to obtain approval from Corrections to pay for the batteries in their entirety. However, in situations where the prisoners have funds in their prison trust account or are earning money through employment within the prison, an assessment will be made as to whether the inmate can contribute to the cost of the battery and, if so, how much.

[40]   It is acknowledged there is some variation between the different prison health centres around New Zealand regarding this issue, with each health centre having their own autonomy regarding such arrangements. Mr Lee has been provided with hearing aid batteries but no payment arrangement has yet been entered into with him because of the stance he has taken regarding the issue and the impasse between Corrections and himself as to whether he should contribute to their cost.

Decision

[41]   I do not consider any reviewable error arises from the policy implemented at Rolleston Prison regarding the provision of hearing aid batteries. It is recognised there is regional variation regarding arrangements concerning the provision of such batteries, but that reflects the fact each prison health centre is required to manage its own budget and has its own commercial arrangements with providers. Importantly, there is no issue that batteries for hearing aids will be provided to prisoners, if necessary, free of charge where they are unable to contribute to their cost.

[42]   Rolleston Prison requires inmates to enter into a payment plan to fund the hearing aid batteries where they have the means to do so because that reflects the position as it would be in the community, promotes the individual prisoner taking responsibility for that item, and in an environment where batteries have the potential to be misused (potential fire hazard) and to be utilised as a tradeable commodity, it is considered that requiring a person to purchase the batteries makes them more financially accountable for their safe and appropriate use. It also allows for the availability of batteries within the prison environs to be controlled.

[43]   I am satisfied that the prison policy relating to the provision of batteries, whereby prisoners, if they are able, are required to contribute to their cost, cannot be considered unreasonable or unfair. There are justifiable reasons for the policy as it is designed to be implemented. Batteries are provided at a discounted rate and will be provided free of charge where an individual does not have the means to contribute to their purchase. The policy does not qualify or prejudice the provision of appropriate health care in the form of operational hearing aids, or breach the requirement of the standard of health care and service that needs to be available to prisoners. The arrangements regarding the provision of batteries for hearing aids reasonably equates to the standard of services available to the general public.

Conclusion

[44]   For the reasons set out, I do not consider any reviewable error arises from the decisions made regarding either the provision of prescription medications to Mr Lee,

or Rolleston Prison’s policy regarding the provision of hearing aid batteries as it is endeavoured to be applied to Mr Lee.

Result

[45]The application for review is dismissed.

Costs

[46]   Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to pursue costs, the parties should file and exchange memoranda (no more than three pages).

Solicitors:

Crown Solicitor Christchurch

Copy to:
Mr Lee, Christchurch