Legal Research
Cases
Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

Case [2016] NZCA 117 12 April 2016

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA129/2016
[2016] NZCA 117

BETWEEN	MICHAEL MARINO Appellant
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing:	4 April 2016
Court:	Miller Cooper and Kós JJ
Counsel:	D A Ewen and G K Edgeler for Appellant D J Perkins and T P Westaway for Respondent
Judgment:	12 April 2016 at 11.30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is dismissed.

B Counsel may file memoranda if any issue arises as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

[Reasons to follow]

Solicitors:
Kerry Burrows, Hamilton for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

Details

AGLC: Marino v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 117
Case: [2016] NZCA 117
Decision Date: 12 April 2016 at 11.30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Michael Marino against the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections, challenging the respondent’s decision regarding Marino’s imprisonment conditions. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand heard the matter, with Miller, Cooper, and Kós JJ presiding. The case was argued by D A Ewen and G K Edgeler for the appellant and D J Perkins and T P Westaway for the respondent. The court delivered its judgment on 12 April 2016, dismissing the appeal and allowing counsel to file memoranda if any issue arose as to costs.

The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent's decision was procedurally fair and whether it complied with relevant legislative provisions concerning the conditions of Marino's imprisonment. The court needed to examine if the decision-making process adhered to statutory requirements and if Marino's rights were properly considered.

The Court of Appeal found that the decision-making process was procedurally sound and that the respondent had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions. The court determined that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections was within their authority to impose the conditions of Marino’s imprisonment. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no basis to interfere with the respondent’s decision. The judgment concluded that the respondent had not acted beyond their powers or in a manner that was unfair to Marino.

Orders