IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV 2016-485-912 [2017] NZHC 2081
BETWEEN
TEINA ANTHONY PORA
Applicant
AND
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent
Hearing:
3 July 2017
Counsel:
G J X McCoy QC and J G Krebs for Applicant P T Rishworth QC and M Majeed for Respondent
Judgment:
28 August 2017
JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J
[1] Teina Pora spent nearly twenty years in jail for a crime that he did not commit.1 He was 17 when he was first arrested and spent over a year in custody on remand, before trial. He was 39 when his conviction was quashed by the Privy Council. There is no other case in New Zealand legal history where it has been accepted by the Crown that a person has been wrongly imprisoned for anywhere near
that length of time.
1 The Honourable Rodney Hansen QC, who provided two reports to the Minister of Justice on
Mr Pora’s case, concluded that:
Mr Pora has established on the balance of probabilities that he is innocent of the crimes of which he was accused and convicted … . Indeed, the state of the evidence is such that, in my view, he could have proved his innocence to an even higher standard.
Rodney Hansen Report for the Minister of Justice on Compensation Claim by Teina Anthony Pora
(23 March 2016) [Eligibility Report] at [312].
PORA v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 2081 [28 August 2017]
[2] That those such as Mr Pora should receive compensation for the time they have spent in prison cannot be doubted; for some time now there has been broad international agreement about that. That consensus is reflected in art 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) – as to which more, later. The immensity of the harm caused to such persons has been noted on
many occasions,2 but in Mr Pora’s case it was summed up by the former High Court
Judge, Rodney Hansen QC like this:3
As the Crown acknowledges, there can be no doubt that the circumstances of Mr Pora’s case are truly exceptional. The lengthy term of imprisonment and Mr Pora’s youth and vulnerability are by themselves sufficient to put his claim in the truly exceptional category. He suffered grievous mental and emotional harm. Family relationships were lost or destroyed and were more or less non-existent for much of his incarceration; important relationships, particularly with his daughter, had to be built from scratch. As earlier noted, harm of this nature continued when Mr Pora was on bail (on highly restrictive conditions) and on parole.
[3] In New Zealand, payment of compensation in such cases has historically been regarded as a matter of executive grace and favour. Compensation is seen as an adjunct to the prerogative of mercy, requiring approval by Cabinet.
[4] Since 1998, however, the payment of “ex gratia” compensation for those who have been wrongly imprisoned has been the subject of detailed Guidelines, under which the key assessments of both eligibility…
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 Pora v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Pora v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 2081
Case
[2017] NZHC 2081
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Teina Anthony Pora spent almost twenty years in prison for a crime he did not commit. His conviction was quashed by the Privy Council in 2015. He sought compensation for his wrongful imprisonment under the Cabinet Guidelines for Compensation or Ex Gratia Payments for Persons Wrongly Convicted and Imprisoned. Mr Hansen QC recommended that Pora receive $2.5 million for his wrongful imprisonment, including $2.2 million for non-pecuniary losses. Mr Hansen also recommended that Pora’s non-pecuniary loss compensation be adjusted for inflation, to reflect the decline in the value of money over time. Cabinet declined to adjust the compensation for inflation. Pora brought judicial review proceedings, contending that the Guidelines permitted inflation adjustment of non-pecuniary loss compensation. The Crown argued that the Guidelines did not require inflation adjustment. The Court held that the Guidelines permitted inflation adjustment of compensation for non-pecuniary loss where it was in the interests of justice to do so. The Court found that the Minister’s advice to Cabinet did not include the fact that the Guidelines permitted inflation adjustment. The Court held that Pora had been treated substantially differently to earlier claimants, in real dollar terms, and that inflation adjusting his compensation would not involve treating him substantially differently from earlier claimants. The Court held that the reasons given by the Minister for Cabinet declining to inflation adjust were not relevant to a proper assessment of compensation under the Guidelines. The Court granted Pora’s application for judicial review and declared that the Guidelines permitted inflation adjustment of compensation for non-pecuniary loss, where it was in the interests of justice to do so.