PN v Rollo - [2022] NZHC 402

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS REMAINS IN FORCE: [2019] NZHC 2177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2022-441-11

[2022] NZHC 402

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 Right to Justice

BETWEEN

PN

Plaintiff

AND

JUDGE P S ROLLO, JUDGE A J ADEANE and ROGER PHILIP

Defendants

On the Papers

Judgment:

9 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

[on referral by Registrar under r 5.35A]

Introduction

[1] PN has filed a proceeding in the High Court in Napier under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The statement of claim makes allegations against two District Court Judges and a lawyer.

[2] The proceeding was referred to me, as Duty Judge, by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016. This permits a Registrar to refer a proceeding to a Judge where there is cause for concern that the proceeding amounts to an abuse of the Court’s process.

PN v ROLLO [2022] NZHC 402 [9 March 2022]

The proceeding

[3] The proceeding relates to or stems from events that occurred while PN was awaiting trial on a criminal matter. PN says on 19 May 2018 he filed an application for a judge-alone pre-trial hearing about the admissibility of evidence. That was one month before the substantive case against him was to go to trial.

[4] PN says he received no response to his application. However, on the day of his trial he appeared before the second-named Judge who advised that what was to occur was the hearing of PN’s admissibility question that he had filed a month before, rather than the trial itself.

[5] PN alleges that he was required to proceed with that pre-trial hearing, despite not having received a response to his notice and being unprepared. He says also that the police used it as an opportunity to introduce new evidence and that the event was an “ambush pre-trial”. PN’s first cause of action relates to this event. He alleges that it was a violation of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights).

[6] PN’s second cause of action relates to a judicial review of the District Court decision in relation to the first cause of action. PN says that the lawyer who was amicus for the defence (the amicus), erroneously advised him to file the judicial review application for him (PN), in the District Court. Subsequently, PN says he was advised that the District Court has no jurisdiction in relation to judicial review. He was not advised of that until he appeared in Court before the second-named Judge.

[7] That Judge issued a reserved judgment on 22 November 2018. PN says that the judgment misrepresents his position and that he did not accept what the Judge said he had accepted. PN…

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 PN v Rollo

Details

AGLC: PN v Rollo [2022] NZHC 402
Case: [2022] NZHC 402
Decision Date: 9 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of PN v Rollo was adjudicated under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The plaintiff, PN, brought forward allegations against two District Court Judges and a lawyer, seeking recourse for what he described as a violation of his rights and an "ambush pre-trial" during a criminal trial. The proceeding was referred to Gwyn J by the Registrar due to concerns about an abuse of the court's process.

The legal issues central to the case involved the applicability of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 (right to justice) to the claims against the District Court Judges and the lawyer. Additionally, the court had to consider whether PN's claims against the District Court Judges and the lawyer were substantiated and warranted judicial review.

Gwyn J ruled that Judges of the District Court have the same immunities as Judges of the High Court, and therefore, immunity from being sued under the civil law for acts done in their official capacity. This immunity extended to the claims against the District Court Judges, which were subsequently struck out. The court also found that the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 did not apply to the claims against the lawyer, and section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 had no application to the claim against the lawyer either. Consequently, these claims were also struck out. The court further notified PN of his right to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal and made no order as to costs due to the defendants incurring no expenses in defending the proceeding.

This judgment highlights the immunity of judicial officers from personal liability in their official capacity and clarifies the scope of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in relation to claims against judicial officers and legal professionals.

Orders