IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2025-485-240
[2025] NZHC 2833
UNDER
Part 30 of the High Court Rules and s 2 of
the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court
IN THE MATTER
of an application for judicial review of a decision made by Cabinet
AND
IN THE MATTER
of an application for a declaratory judgment
BETWEEN
MALCOLM JOHN RICHARDS
Plaintiff
AND
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Defendant
Hearing:
26 August 2025
Appearances:
C J Griggs and P C Kelly for Plaintiff
K Laurenson and S R Hiha for Defendant
K Anderson KC and F Everard for Te Kahui Tika Tangata ǀ Human Rights Commission, Intervener
B Keith and A Hill for Leonie McInroe, Intervener
Judgment:
29 September 2025
JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J
RICHARDS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 2833 [29 September 2025]
Table of Contents
Para Nos
Introduction [1]
Background [9]
Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit [9] Previous settlements [13] Cases taken to the UNCAT by Mr Zentveld and Mr Richards [16]
Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent
Unit [17]
The Cabinet Decisions [19]
Implementation of redress scheme [34]
The challenge to the redress scheme [46]
Mr Richards' claim [46] The Crown’s opposition [54] The interveners’ positions [55]
Approach to the case [65]
Legal framework required [67]
International Convention on Civil and Political Rights [74] The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [80]
Other relevant international instruments [85]
When international law becomes binding in New Zealand [92] Is there a binding legal framework in this case? [100]
Does the Torture Convention provide a binding legal framework against which the Cabinet Decisions may be assessed? [101]
The validity of New Zealand’s reservation to art 14 [104] Is the Torture Convention a binding legal framework as a result of the Crimes of Torture Act? [118]
Does art 2(3) of the ICCPR (through s 9 of the Bill of Rights Act) provide a binding legal framework against which the Cabinet Decisions may be
assessed? [151]
Where there is a right there must be a remedy [151]
Discussion [168]
Did Cabinet fail to consider New Zealand’s international law obligations
as a mandatory relevant consideration? [187]
Conclusion on Mr Richards' claim [201]
Result [203]
Costs [204]
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, Malcom Richards, is a former patient of the Child and Adolescent Unit of Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital (Lake Alice). On 24 July 2024 the New Zealand Government formally acknowledged and apologised for torture that occurred at Lake Alice by the use of improperly administered electroconvulsive therapy and paraldehyde injections. The Government subsequently confirmed it would provide redress to survivors of this torture at Lake Alice. On 16 December 2024, Cabinet made certain decisions adopting a redress scheme (the Cabinet Decisions). The redress scheme includes a payment (either an expedited payment fixed at
$150,000 or an individualised payment based on an independent assessment), a written apology acknowledging torture from the Prime Minister…
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 Richards v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Richards v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 2833
Case
[2025] NZHC 2833
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Richards v Attorney-General, Malcom Richards, a former patient of the Child and Adolescent Unit of Lake Alice Psychiatric Hospital, applied for judicial review and a declaratory judgment against the Attorney-General, challenging the redress scheme established by Cabinet in response to the acknowledgment and apology for torture that occurred at Lake Alice. Mr Richards argued that the redress scheme does not comply with section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and New Zealand's obligations under international human rights law. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the Cabinet decisions are not amenable to review and, in any event, comply with the Bill of Rights Act and international human rights obligations. Both the Human Rights Commission and Leoni McInroe, a former patient at Lake Alice, were granted leave to intervene in the proceeding. The Court concluded that there is no binding legal framework that should be used by the Court to measure the lawfulness of the Cabinet decisions to adopt the redress scheme. The legal frameworks relied on by Mr Richards are not binding on Cabinet under domestic law. In the absence of a legal framework against which to assess the lawfulness of the Cabinet decisions, the Court will not intervene in Cabinet's discretionary policy decisions. The Court also concluded that the Cabinet decisions do not breach Mr Richards' rights as claimed. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.