Mitchell v Attorney-General - [2016] NZHC 1737

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-485-771 [2016] NZHC 1737

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of a claim for damages

BETWEEN

KERRYN MITCHELL Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant

Hearing: 12 May 2016 (via AVL)

Counsel

K Mitchell in Person
D H Harris and T P Westaway for Defendant
A W Taylor (Intended Plaintiff) in Person

Judgment:

28 July 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

Introduction

[1] This judgment determines two interlocutory applications, one by the plaintiff Ms Mitchell and the second by Arthur William Taylor, to have Mr Taylor joined to this proceeding as a plaintiff. At the time of the hearing of the interlocutory applications both Mr Taylor and Ms Mitchell were serving prisoners. Ms Mitchell has since been released.

Background

[2] The genesis of this proceeding is in the withholding of two letters that Ms Mitchell wrote to Mr Taylor in March and April 2013. The prison manager at Arohata Women’s Prison (Arohata) wrote to Ms Mitchell and explained that her two letters to Mr Taylor had been withheld for reasons that were justified under the
Corrections Act 2004.

MITCHELL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 1737 [28 July 2016]

[3] Ms Mitchell commenced judicial review proceedings. Shortly thereafter the

prison manager revoked the decisions to withhold Ms Mitchell’s letters to Mr Taylor.

[4] The Crown applied to strike out Ms Mitchell’s judicial review proceedings. Collins J struck out the proceeding as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action.1 That was because the prison manager’s errors had been rectified and the proceeding was therefore moot. The Judge emphasised that in striking out the proceeding he was not trivialising the conduct of the prison manager whose decisions to withhold Ms Mitchell’s mail were unlawful. As well, on the face of those actions they “breached the rights guaranteed to Ms Mitchell in ss 14 and 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).”2 Ms Mitchell was expressly “permitted to change her … proceeding into a claim for damages for breach of the NZBORA”.3

[5] This proceeding, filed in October 2015, is Ms Mitchell’s claim for damages

for breach of her NZBORA rights.

The applications for joinder

[6] Ms Mitchell filed her application to join Mr Taylor in November 2015. The application is made pursuant to r 4.2 of the High Court Rules. An order is sought adding Mr Taylor as a “joint applicant” on the grounds that it would be in the interests of justice for him to be joined, that he consented to be joined and there is no undue prejudice to any party.

[7] Mr Taylor’s application for joinder, filed in November 2015, relies on s 10(2)(b) of the Judicature Amendment Act 19724 and rr 4.2 and 4.56 of the High Court Rules. The further grounds are that Mr Taylor’s intended claim arises from the same documents and circumstances as Ms Mitchell’s claim. The letters Ms Mitchell wrote were intended for Mr Taylor and his s 14…

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 [2016] NZHC 1737
Case: [2016] NZHC 1737
Decision Date: 28 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Mitchell v Attorney-General involved two interlocutory applications, one filed by the plaintiff, Kerryn Mitchell, and the other by Arthur William Taylor, to join the proceedings as a plaintiff. Both applicants were serving prisoners at the time of the hearing. The central issue was whether Mr Taylor should be joined as a plaintiff in Ms Mitchell's claim for damages against the Attorney-General for breach of her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). The dispute arose from the unlawful withholding of letters Ms Mitchell wrote to Mr Taylor in March and April 2013 by the prison manager at Arohata Women’s Prison. Although the prison manager later revoked the decisions, Ms Mitchell proceeded with a claim for damages for breach of her NZBORA rights.

The court considered the applications for joinder under the High Court Rules, particularly rule 4.56, which allows for the striking out and adding of parties. The court also examined the relationship between rule 4.56 and rule 4.2, which governs the joinder of plaintiffs. The primary test for joinder under rule 4.56 is whether the presence of the party is necessary to ensure all matters in dispute can be effectively and completely determined.

Ms Mitchell and Mr Taylor argued that their presence was necessary to address their respective rights and the broader public interest issues, including the unlawful actions of the prison manager. However, the court found that Mr Taylor's presence was not necessary to determine Ms Mitchell's rights or to ensure all questions involved in the proceeding could be effectively and completely adjudicated. The court noted that while Mr Taylor had a legitimate interest in the withheld letters, his rights and the appropriate remedy for any breach, if proven, might differ from Ms Mitchell's. Additionally, the court highlighted that permitting joinder would likely expand the scope of the proceeding beyond the limited claim for breach of specified NZBORA rights and remedies, contrary to the objective of ensuring just and expeditious determination of the litigation.

Ultimately, the court dismissed both interlocutory applications for joinder, finding that Mr Taylor's presence was not necessary to determine the issues in Ms Mitchell's claim. The court emphasized that the presence of a party is required only if necessary to justly determine the issues arising and that broader considerations, such as public interest or resource inequality, do not satisfy the necessity test.

Orders