O'Neill v Attorney-General - [2018] NZHC 1073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-2475

[2018] NZHC 1073

BETWEEN
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

First Respondent

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Second Respondent

SERCO NEW ZEALAND

Third Respondent

Hearing: 27 February 2018

Appearances:

C J O’Neill, Applicant in person

S M Earl for First and Second Respondents
L Clark and B A Mathers for Third Respondent

Judgment:

16 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment is delivered by me on 16 May 2018 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland (First and Second Respondents) Kensington Swan, Wellington (Third Respondent)

And to:
The Applicant

O’NEILL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ [2018] NZHC 1073 [16 May 2018]

Summary

[1] Mr Christopher Joseph O’Neill complains he served a sentence shorter than it should have been, meaning he was eligible for parole later than he should have been. He filed proceedings which were struck out by Associate Judge Christiansen. He applies to review that decision. It does seem Mr O’Neill was denied the opportunity to apply for parole due to an error by the Department of Corrections. But he has failed to plead his case so that the defendants can have any idea of the legal basis for his claims, other than his claim of false imprisonment which is not arguable. Litigants in person are entitled to latitude in abiding by technical legal rules. But they are not entitled to throw a mass of factual allegations at defendants without specifying their legal basis. If Mr O’Neill wishes to pursue any of his complaints he will need to file a proper statement of claim, identifying not only the facts he relies upon but the legal basis for his claim. I decline his application to review the decision.

What happened?

Mr O’Neill’s convictions and sentence

[2] Mr O’Neill was convicted by a jury in the District Court of five charges of criminal harassment and four charges of breaching a restraining order under the Harassment Act 1997. He also pleaded guilty to 10 charges relating to breaches of the Postal Services Act 1998. The charges related to Mr O’Neill sending abusive letters and materials to government departments, ministers, lawyers, judges, court officials, the Medical Council, the Police, the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the Ombudsmen. He also sent such material to friends, relatives and neighbours of some of those people. In sentencing him on 31 October 2012 for these offences, Judge Blackie stated “the material has to be summarised as disgusting and depraved and anybody that writes that sort of material must have been exercising some form of depraved mind”.1

1 R v O’Neil DC Manukau CRI-2011-004-11817, 31 October 2012 at [5].

[3] In sentencing Mr O’Neill, Judge Blackie convicted and discharged him on the postal offences.2 In relation to the Harassment Act charges he sentenced Mr O’Neill as follows:3

(a)In respect of the charges for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read O'Neill v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 1073
Decision Date: 16 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In O'Neill v Attorney-General, Christopher Joseph O'Neill sought judicial review of a decision to strike out his proceeding against the Attorney-General, the Department of Corrections, and Serco New Zealand Ltd. O'Neill claimed he was imprisoned for a shorter term than he should have been and was therefore denied parole eligibility. The High Court dismissed O'Neill's application for review. The court found that the strike-out decision was correct because O'Neill's statement of claim did not disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. While O'Neill had alleged various factual wrongs, he had failed to specify the legal basis for his claims. In particular, he had not identified the decisions that were the subject of his judicial review claim or what legal provisions he alleged had been breached. O'Neill had been given opportunities to remedy his pleading but had refused to do so. The court declined O'Neill's application for review and awarded costs to the defendants. It strongly suggested O'Neill consult a lawyer to properly plead his claims if he wished to pursue them further.

Orders