Legal Research
Cases
Parore v Attorney-General

Parore v Attorney-General

Case [2023] NZHC 1010 1 May 2023

Right to Silence

Fair Trial Rights

Breach of Rights

Breach of Natural Justice

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-380

[2023] NZHC 1010

BETWEEN
RICHARD PARORE

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 17-18 April 2023

Appearances:

D P Weaver and T J Conder for the Plaintiff

A B Goosen and J V Angelson for the Defendant

Judgment:

1 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

Solicitors/Counsel
D P Weaver, Barrister, Tauranga Holland Beckett Law, Tauranga Crown Law Office, Wellington
Inland Revenue Legal Services, Dunedin

PARORE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 1010 [1 May 2023]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background [2]

The civil tax dispute [7]

The criminal proceedings [28]

District Court stay judgment [38]

High Court stay judgment [42]

Recommencement of civil process [54]

Evidence [57]

Issues for resolution [58]

What rights have been breached? [59]

How should the breach be characterised? [72]

Was the breach causative of the damage to Mr Parore? [81]

Was the stay adequate relief? [85]

Has Mr Parore benefited by the Commissioner’s breach? [94]

Is a declaration necessary? [99]

Damages [104]

Reimbursement of legal costs as damages [105]

Emotional damage [125]

Orders [132]

Costs [133]

[1] This is a claim for compensation (Baigent damages)1 for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights) in a tax proceeding.

Background

[2] Richard Parore was at all relevant times a self-employed real estate agent. Mr Parore was adjudicated bankrupt on 2 April 2009 and discharged from bankruptcy on 10 October 2014. Mr Parore continued working as a real estate agent both during and after his bankruptcy. Mr Parore filed Goods and Services Tax (GST) returns and paid GST during the first two or so years of his bankruptcy. For the years 2012 to 2017, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) contended that Mr Parore failed to pay GST and had not filed income tax returns.

[3] The presumptive term of Mr Parore’s bankruptcy was three years from the date he filed a statement of his affairs.2 Mr Parore did not file his statement of affairs until September 2011.

[4] Within a few days of receiving the statement of affairs, the Official Assignee (OA) notified Mr Parore that he was required to obtain the OA’s consent to trade while a bankrupt.

[5] Mr Parore applied for OA consent in late October 2011. He advised that he would retain a named accountant to act as his financial supervisor.

[6] On 24 January 2012 an OA insolvency officer met with Mr Parore and explained that the accountant would need to monitor Mr Parore’s finances and pay him a wage. On that day, Mr Parore was sent a form to sign to confirm that he was aware of the conditions upon which the consent to trade would be granted. Those conditions included a requirement that the accountant would be a joint signatory on the bank account into which all monies were to be banked, that the accountant would prepare financial statements, PAYE and GST returns and that…

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 Parore v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Parore v Attorney-General [2023] NZHC 1010
Case: [2023] NZHC 1010
Decision Date: 1 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Richard Parore filed a claim against the Attorney-General for compensation for breach of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The dispute originated from a tax proceeding where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue issued default GST assessments against Parore, alleging that he had failed to pay GST during certain periods. Following the issuance of these assessments, the Commissioner initiated criminal proceedings against Parore for evading GST. The District Court stayed the criminal proceedings, finding that the Commissioner's actions had breached Parore's fair trial rights. The Commissioner appealed this decision to the High Court, which upheld the stay.

The court examined several issues, including the nature of the rights breached, the characterization of the breach, causation, and the adequacy of the stay as a remedy. The court concluded that the Commissioner's actions constituted a breach of Parore's right to silence under the Bill of Rights. The breach was found to be highly reckless, as the Commissioner was aware of the risks associated with the sequence of civil and criminal proceedings from prior court decisions. The court rejected the argument that the stay of the criminal proceedings adequately remedied the breach, as Parore had already suffered harm through the criminal process.

Regarding damages, the court awarded Parore compensation for his legal costs incurred due to the criminal proceedings, finding that the Commissioner's breach was a sufficiently substantial cause of this loss. Additionally, the court awarded damages for the emotional harm Parore suffered as a result of the breach, noting that such harm is an almost inevitable consequence of being subjected to criminal proceedings. The court also granted a declaration that the Commissioner had breached Parore's right to silence.

Orders