Police v Williams - [2022] NZCA 419

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA598/2021
[2022] NZCA 419

BETWEEN	NEW ZEALAND POLICE Appellant
AND	JAMES LEONARD WILLIAMS Respondent

Hearing:	29 June 2022
Court:	French, Gilbert and Dobson JJ
Counsel:	M J McKillop and M R G van Alphen Fyfe for Appellant N Levy QC for Respondent
Judgment:	8 September 2022 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe answers to the questions of law are set out at [40] of this judgment.
CThe High Court judgment is set aside.
DThe decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal is reinstated.
EThere is no order for costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Mr Williams brought a claim for breach of privacy in the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) after the Police wrongly provided a copy of his criminal record to his ex-wife’s lawyer in response to a request made under the Official Information Act 1982 (the OIA). The Tribunal struck out the claim on the basis the Police were immune from suit in terms of s 48 of the OIA because the information was made available in good faith pursuant to its provisions.[1]
[1]Williams v Police [2020] NZHRRT 26 [Tribunal decision].
The High Court allowed Mr Williams’ appeal, finding that the Tribunal could not make factual findings in the context of a strike-out application as to whether the statutory immunity under s 48 of the OIA applied.[2] The High Court remitted the proceeding back to the Tribunal for determination.[3]
[2]Williams v New Zealand Police [2021] NZHC 808, [2021] 2 NZLR 292 [High Court judgment] at [88] and [91].
[3]At [111].
The High Court subsequently granted leave to appeal to this Court on the following three questions of law:[4]
(a)Can the Tribunal grant summary judgment?
(b)Who carries the burden of establishing, or negativing, the elements of s 48 of the OIA?
(c)Is good faith to be presumed from a disclosure of information in response to an OIA request?

The facts

[4]Williams v Police [2021] NZHC 2345 [Leave judgment] at [24] and [33].

The essential facts are not in dispute. In August 2009, Mr Williams’ ex-wife instructed her lawyer to make an application to the Family Court for a protection order against Mr Williams. To support that application, the lawyer wrote to the Paeroa Police Station making a request for information pursuant to the OIA. The request was sent by facsimile at 2.55 pm on 20 August 2009 and read as follows:
I act for [Mr Williams’ ex-wife)] in applying for a Protection Order against [Mr Williams].
I understand there is a history of domestic violence between these parties requiring police assistance.
Under the Official Information Act 1982 would you please forward all information held by Police as regards [my client] and Mr Williams. Please note I have a copy of the statement made by [my client] on the 17^thAugust 2009 so do not require that.
The request was…

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 Police v Williams

Details

AGLC: Police v Williams [2022] NZCA 419
Case: [2022] NZCA 419
Decision Date: 8 September 2022 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Police v Williams, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand addressed an appeal by the New Zealand Police against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (Tribunal) and the subsequent judgment of the High Court. The central dispute was whether the Police were immune from a claim for breach of privacy by Mr James Leonard Williams, who alleged that his criminal history was disclosed to his ex-wife's lawyer in response to an Official Information Act (OIA) request. The Tribunal had struck out Mr Williams' claim, finding the Police immune under s 48 of the OIA. The High Court, however, allowed Mr Williams' appeal, holding that the Tribunal erred in drawing factual inferences in the context of a strike-out application. The appeal before the Court of Appeal centred on three questions of law concerning the Tribunal's jurisdiction, the burden of proof regarding the statutory immunity, and whether good faith could be presumed from a disclosure in response to an OIA request.

The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal had the power to grant summary judgment in appropriate cases where it is shown that a claim cannot succeed. It further held that the burden of proving bad faith to overcome the statutory immunity lies with the party seeking to do so, once it is shown that the information was provided in response to an OIA request in circumstances that give no indication of being done otherwise than in good faith. Finally, the Court determined that good faith could be presumed from a disclosure in response to an OIA request, absent any indication of bad faith.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and the decision of the Tribunal was reinstated. There was no order for costs.

Orders