NEWTON AND LECKIE - [2024] NZHC 2861

THE NAMES IN THIS JUDGMENT HAVE BEEN ANONYMISED TO COMPLY WITH

S 139 OF THE CARE OF CHILDREN ACT 2004, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE

FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2023-409-517

[2024] NZHC 2861

BETWEEN
NEWTON

Appellant

AND

LECKIE

Respondent

Hearing: 24 September 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person Respondent in person

Judgment:

2 October 2024

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2024 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

NEWTON v LECKIE [2024] NZHC 2861 [2 October 2024]

Introduction

[1] Lily is the five year old daughter of Ms Leckie and Mr Newton. In May 2023 Ms Leckie applied under s 46R of the Care of Children Act 2004 (CoCA) seeking the Court’s authority to immunise Lily in accordance with the Ministry of Health immunisation guidelines. Mr Newton opposed Lily being immunised.

[2] On 14 September 2023, Judge Duggan made a guardianship order authorising Lily to receive the immunisations recommended by the New Zealand Ministry of Health.1

The appeal

[3]On 20 September 2023 Mr Newton filed an appeal against that decision.

[4] At the time he did not realise that he needed leave to appeal. An application for leave to appeal was duly filed and, in a decision dated 7 December 2023, Eaton J granted leave to appeal, although observing that the grounds of appeal advanced did not appear to be strong.2

[5] The Judge identified that the grounds for seeking leave to appeal, as best as he could discern them, were:

(a)false statements and factual errors having been made by both counsel for the respondent and lawyer for the child in submissions advanced before the Family Court, and in the decision of the Family Court Judge;

(b)an allegation of bias said to be demonstrated by the Judge disregarding material advanced by the appellant and accepting submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent and lawyer for the child;

(c)a failure by the Judge to acknowledge that the evidence advanced by the appellant was “unique” to the parties’ child; and

1 Newton v Leckie [2023] NZFC 10492.
2 Newton v Leckie [2023] NZHC 3550 at [24].

(d)a failure by the Judge to have regard to Ministry of Health data specific to the child.

[6] In submissions subsequently filed, Mr Newton elaborated on these points, setting out 13 criticisms he had relating to the hearing process and the decision.

Relevant background

[7] It is not necessary, for the purposes of this appeal, to say much about the background to the application. Suffice to say the parties met [overseas] and Lily was born there. Mr Newton says that one of the things that he understood Ms Leckie and he were in agreement on, was not vaccinating their child. However, from Ms Leckie’s perspective, she says,…

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 NEWTON AND LECKIE

Details

AGLC: NEWTON AND LECKIE [2024] NZHC 2861
Case: [2024] NZHC 2861
Decision Date: 2 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal brought by Mr Newton against a decision of the Family Court to authorise the immunisation of his five year old daughter, Lily, against her mother Ms Leckie's wishes. The Family Court had found that immunising Lily was in her best interests and that the Ministry of Health's recommended immunisation schedule should be followed in her case. Mr Newton's appeal was based on various grounds, including claims of bias and procedural unfairness, mischaracterisation of his evidence, and an erroneous reliance on the report of the lawyer for the child.

Dunningham J found that none of the grounds were substantiated. The Court held that the Family Court's decision was correct and consistent with relevant case law. The appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to Ms Leckie.

Orders