Mitchell v Prison Director Arohata Prison - [2016] NZHC 3103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-55 [2016] NZHC 3103

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972, s 4

IN THE MATTER

of applications for judicial review and relief

BETWEEN

KERRYN MITCHELL Applicant

AND

THE PRISON DIRECTOR AROHATA PRISON

Respondent

CIV-2016-485-56

BETWEEN KERRYN MITCHELL Plaintiff

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS First Defendant

THE VISITING JUSTICE AROHATA PRISON
Second Defendant

CIV- 2016-485-007

BETWEEN KERRYN MITCHELL Applicant

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS First Respondent

THE PRISON DIRECTOR AROHATA PRISON
Second Respondent

KERRYN MITCHELL v THE PRISON DIRECTOR AROHATA PRISON [2016] NZHC 3103 [16 December
2016]

CIV-2016-485-269

BETWEEN KERRYN MITCHELL Applicant

ANDTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Hearing: 9 November 2016

Counsel:

G Minchin for Applicant in CIV-2016-485-269
Applicant in Person
V McCall for Respondent/Defendants

Judgment:

16 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] The applicant/plaintiff, Kerryn Mitchell, was arrested and remanded in custody on breach of protection order charges on 2 December 2012. Ms Mitchell was eventually sentenced to imprisonment on those charges. Whilst a serving prisoner, Ms Mitchell further breached those protection orders, and was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment. In circumstances set out in more detail in my judgment on Ms Mitchell’s habeas corpus application,1 Ms Mitchell was released
following a successful sentence appeal on Friday 1 July 2016.2 She was

immediately re-arrested on a fresh charge of attempted breach of the protection order. When I heard these interlocutory applications, Ms Mitchell was remanded in custody on two charges: that attempted breach and one of assault on a police officer. I do not know her current status.

[2] Ms Mitchell has commenced a large number of proceedings since she was first imprisoned. This judgment concerns four of them:

1 Mitchell v R [2016] NZHC 2718.
2 Mitchell v R [2016] NZCA 299.

(a) CIV-2016-485-55 (the “electric jug and other property claim”);

(b) CIV-2016-485-56 (the “Visiting Justice claim”);

(c) CIV-2016-485-007 (the “prison-issued clothing claim”); and

(d) CIV-2016-485-269 (the “transfer decision claim”).

[3] This is an application by the various respondents in those proceedings (collectively, the Crown) for a ruling that those proceedings are, by reason of Ms Mitchell’s release from prison on 1 July, moot.

Context

[4] A case management Minute of Mallon J dated 22 August 2016, a copy of which is annexed to this judgment, summarises the position as it existed at that date. Since then, Ms Mitchell has filed a number of further proceedings. I will deal with the case management issues that arise following this judgment in a separate memorandum issued contemporaneously.

[5] The four proceedings at issue here can be summarised, very briefly, as follows:

· The prison-issued clothing claim

This proceeding alleges that, following Ms Mitchell’s sentencing on

2 December 2015, the requirement at Arohata Prison that sentenced prisoners wear prison-issued clothing was ultra vires the Corrections Act 2004. By refusing to allow her to have access to her legal papers, while she refused to wear prison-issued clothing, the Prison authorities…

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 Prison Director Arohata Prison

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v Prison Director Arohata Prison [2016] NZHC 3103
Case: [2016] NZHC 3103
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Kerryn Mitchell, a former prisoner, brought a series of proceedings against various respondents related to her imprisonment at Arohata Prison. The Crown applied for these proceedings to be struck out on the basis of mootness following Ms Mitchell's release from prison. The court was required to determine whether the proceedings had become moot and, if so, whether any of them could be allowed to proceed for the purpose of providing a declaration of unreasonableness or illegality. The Crown argued that the proceedings had become moot because Ms Mitchell's sentence had expired, and there was no utility in any of the relief originally sought. They cited various situations where the courts had held that declaratory relief would serve no useful purpose. Ms Mitchell, however, argued that her sentence had not come to an end as she had been immediately re-arrested on a fresh charge. Moreover, she argued that there was both an individual and a broader public interest in holding the Department of Corrections accountable for the unlawful treatment of sentenced prisoners. The court declined the Crown's application that the challenged proceedings be struck out for mootness. The court found that Ms Mitchell may still remain in custody, and none of the substantive issues she had raised in the challenged proceedings had been decided. The court also found that there was well-established authority as to the value of a declaration as relief. The court further found that the interests of both Ms Mitchell and the justice system more generally were in having the substance of those various complaints considered and disposed of. Therefore, the court declined to make the declarations of mootness the respondents sought.

Orders