R (SC 64/2022) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPLICANT PROHIBITED BY S 201 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 AND PURSUANT TO SS 107RA AND 107G OF THE PAROLE ACT 2002. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 64/2022
[2023] NZSC 31

BETWEEN	R (SC 64/2022) Applicant
AND	CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A J Ellis and G K Edgeler for Applicant B C L Charmley for Respondent
Judgment:	11 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225).

BThe approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, referred to as R, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed their application to set aside an order that refused to renew an Extended Supervision Order. The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections was the respondent. The case was heard by Glazebrook, O’Regan and Williams JJ. The central issue was the interplay between the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the court's discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order.

The court considered whether the Bill of Rights Act had any impact on the exercise of the court's discretion in these circumstances. The court determined that the Bill of Rights Act did not alter the court's discretion in this specific context. The court emphasised that the Bill of Rights Act did not impose any additional constraints on the court's discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order where a Compulsory Care Order was also in place. The court also noted that the decision to renew an Extended Supervision Order involved a complex balancing of various interests, including public safety, the individual's rehabilitation and the rights of the individual under the Bill of Rights Act.

The court granted leave to appeal and allowed the question to be framed as how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affects the exercise of the court's discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order. The court did not provide a final determination on the merits of the appeal but allowed the matter to proceed to a higher court for further consideration.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established