Counsel: Plaintiff in person (via AVL)
D Harris for Defendant in proceeding CIV-2013-485-000624
D Perkins for First and Second Defendants in CIV-2013-485-
000766

Judgment: 29 October 2013

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

Introduction

[1] Ms Mitchell has commenced two proceedings in which she seeks to judicially review the lawfulness of aspects of the way she was treated as a prisoner in Arohata

MITCHELL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZHC 2836 [29 October 2013]

Women’s Prison (Arohata).1 At the hearing Ms Mitchell also communicated an intention to add causes of action for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990 (NZBORA). The defendants, whom I will refer to collectively as the Crown, have applied to strike out both sets of proceedings.

[2] The question I have to consider is whether Ms Mitchell’s statements of claim:

(1) disclose no reasonably arguable causes of action; or are

(2) frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of the process of Court and ought therefore to be struck out.

Context

(A) First proceeding

Ms Mitchell’s letters to Mr Taylor

[3] On 28 March and 22 April 2013, Ms Mitchell wrote to Mr Taylor, a prisoner at Paremoremo Prison, Auckland.

[4] The first of those letters was two pages long and contained the following paragraph:

The funny thing is (cause you have to have a sense of humour in jail) is that the prison manager gave me drugs on 26 February 2013 to make me sleep (only four days worth though).

[5] The second of Ms Mitchell’s letters to Mr Taylor was four pages long and contained the following paragraph:

I am well aware of Arohata’s “bullshit” especially since A M Abraham2 started in 2009. At one stage, the whole prison ran out of paper and envelopes for writing because she blew her budget! When I came in for this lag ... wings had shut down and the prison manager couldn’t pay the power bill on the remand wing!

1 Ms Mitchell is now a prisoner at Auckland Women’s Prison.
2 Prison Manager.

[6] On 28 March and 22 April 2013 the prison manager at Arohata (prison manager) wrote to Ms Mitchell and explained that her two letters to Mr Taylor were withheld because it was reasonably believed the two paragraphs I have set out above were likely to:

(1) threaten or intimidate the recipient; or

(2) endanger the safety or welfare of another person; or

(3) affect another person adversely; or

(4) posed a threat to the security of the prison; or

(5)refer to, involve, or facilitate the commission or possible commission of an offence.3

These criteria can be found in s 108(1)(b) Corrections Act 2004 (the Act) which sets out the basis upon which a prison manager may withhold mail…

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 Mitchell v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Attorney-General [2013] NZHC 2836
Case: [2013] NZHC 2836
Decision Date: 29 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Mitchell commenced two proceedings seeking judicial review of the treatment she received as a prisoner in Arohata Women's Prison. The defendants, referred to collectively as the Crown, applied to strike out both sets of proceedings. The court had to determine if the statements of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable causes of action or were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process. The first proceeding related to the prison authorities' decision to withhold Ms Mitchell's letters and newspaper, which the prison manager justified under incorrect sections of the Corrections Act 2004. Although the errors were rectified, the court found the proceeding moot and struck it out as frivolous. The court also dismissed Ms Mitchell's complaints about delays in mail delivery and the removal of plastic wrapping from her newspaper as trivial. The second proceeding concerned the authorities' failure to provide Ms Mitchell with a mattress and sufficient bedding for six days. The Crown argued that Ms Mitchell destroyed the mattresses provided to her, justifying their withholding. The court agreed, finding that the matter was better suited to the prison inspectorate system and the Ombudsman, not judicial review. Both proceedings were struck out, but Ms Mitchell was allowed to amend her first proceeding to claim damages for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Crown's application for costs was deferred until the damages claim was resolved.

Orders