Legal Research
Cases
Putua v Attorney-General

Putua v Attorney-General

Case [2022] NZHC 2277 7 September 2022

Constitutional Validity

Separation of Powers

Legal Privilege

Admissibility of Evidence

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Statutory Interpretation

Compensatory Damages

Constitutional Law

Human Rights Law

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-2021-485-599

[2022] NZHC 2277

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

BETWEEN

KORO PUTUA

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Defendant

Hearing: 16 March 2022

Counsel:

D A Ewen for Plaintiff

D Jones and T Li for Defendant

Judgment:

7 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

[1] On 15 September 2016, Mr Putua was sentenced in the District Court to a total of four years and six months’ imprisonment on 16 charges (including burglary, unlawfully carrying firearms, receiving, theft and possession of cannabis).1

[2] When preparing the warrant of commitment, the Deputy Registrar mistakenly recorded that a three month sentence on one of the charges was cumulative, rather than concurrent, on the sentence for another charge.2 The effect was wrongly to extend the total length of Mr Putua’s sentence by three months. The sentencing Judge signed the warrant without noticing the defect.

1 R v Putua [2016] NZDC 18322. That sentence was made up as follows: three years and four months’ imprisonment on a burglary charge; a cumulative sentence of one year and two months’ imprisonment on a charge of possession of a sawn-off shotgun; and concurrent sentences on the remaining 14 charges.
2 The charge being another possession offence under the Arms Act.

PUTUA v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NZ [2022] NZHC 2277 [7 September 2022]

[3] Mr Putua says he told staff at Northland Regional Correctional Facility of the mistake upon his arrival there. He maintained his statutory release date should be 11 November 2020 but he was not released then. Eventually, on 14 December 2020, a registrar prepared a corrected warrant which the sentencing Judge then signed. Mr Putua was released that day, after serving 33 days in prison more than he should have.

[4] The Crown accepts that Mr Putua was unlawfully and, so, arbitrarily detained for 33 days, in breach of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA).

[5] Mr Putua now seeks a declaration to that effect, together with $11,000 in Baigent damages.3 He calls in aid the right confirmed by art 9(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides:

Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

[6] The Crown says that the Court has no jurisdiction, and no remedy is available, because the error here was a judicial one. It relies on the decision of the three-judge majority of the Supreme Court in Attorney-General v Chapman.4

Legal framework

[7]Section 91 of the Sentencing Act 2002 relevantly provides:

91 Warrant of commitment for sentence of imprisonment

(1) If a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment, a warrant must be issued stating briefly the particulars of the offence and directing the detention of the offender in accordance with the sentence.

…

(6) If the sentence is imposed by the District Court, any District Court Judge…

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 Putua v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Putua v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 2277
Case: [2022] NZHC 2277
Decision Date: 7 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Koro Putua sought a declaration that he was unlawfully detained for 33 days in breach of s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) and damages of $11,000 in respect of that unlawful detention. The Crown conceded that Putua was unlawfully detained but argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear his claim because the unlawful detention resulted from the signing of a warrant of commitment by a District Court Judge, an act which attracts judicial immunity. The Crown further argued that even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Deputy Registrar’s mistake in preparing the warrant was superseded by the Judge’s signature on it. The Court disagreed on both points. It found that the Deputy Registrar’s mistake was not protected by judicial immunity and that the Judge’s signature was not a superseding cause that precluded liability for the Registrar’s mistake. The Court also held that Putua was entitled to damages of $11,000 together with interest. It declined to award costs until the parties had an opportunity to agree on them.

Orders