Siemer v Attorney-General - [2020] NZHC 2581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2019-404-002797

[2020] NZHC 2581

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for Judicial Review

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing: 1 October 2020

Appearances:

Applicant in person

A M Powell and H F Brockway for the Respondent by VMR

Judgment:

1 October 2020

Reissued:

20 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 01 October 2020 at 3.30pm and
re-delivered by me on 20 October 2020 at 3.00pm in accordance with High Court Rules 2016, r 11.10

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Crown Law, Wellington Copy to:
Applicant

SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2581 [1 October 2020]

[1] Vincent Siemer applies to review a decision by Downs J denying Mr Siemer access to a document on the Court file in another proceeding.

[2]As set out below, I have no jurisdiction to review the decision of Downs J.

[3] Accordingly, I strike out the application in accordance with r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016.

[4] Because the hearing of Mr Siemer’s application was set down for today, I considered it appropriate to advise Mr Siemer in person at the hearing rather than make my decision on the papers and vacate the hearing. However, because the jurisdictional point is plain, I did not consider it appropriate to hear Mr Siemer on the point.

[5] At the hearing, I handed Mr Siemer a draft of this decision, which I have since amended and finalised.

History of application

[6] On 7 October 2019, Mr Siemer applied under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (Access to Court Documents Rules) for access to an application for leave to commence proceedings brought by Razdan Rafiq. Mr Rafiq had been declared a vexatious litigant by an order made under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 that he was not to commence proceedings in any court without leave.

[7] Mr Siemer is also subject to such an order, which was made by the Court of Appeal on 4 March 2016.

[8] In a minute dated 24 October 2019, Downs J agreed that Mr Siemer was entitled to access the judgment of Venning J declining Mr Rafiq’s application for leave, but otherwise declined Mr Siemer’s application.1

[9] Mr Siemer applied for leave to appeal Downs J’s decision. In a judgment dated 18 December 2019, Downs J declined Mr Siemer’s application for leave.2 In his

1 Rafiq v Whata [2019] NZHC 1193.
2 Siemer v Auckland High Court [2019] NZHC 3393.

decision, Downs J recorded his view that Mr Siemer remained a vexatious litigant,3 notwithstanding the contrary conclusion reached by Palmer J in another proceeding.4

[10] Mr Siemer appealed Downs J’s refusal to grant him leave to appeal. That appeal is currently before the Court of Appeal.

Application for judicial review

[11] Mr Siemer also applied to review Downs J’s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Siemer v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 2581
Decision Date: 1 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Siemer sought judicial review of a decision by Downs J to deny him access to a document on the court file in another proceeding. The document in question was an application for leave to commence proceedings by Razdan Rafiq, a person declared a vexatious litigant. Siemer, who is also a vexatious litigant, had applied for access to the document under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Downs J agreed that Siemer was entitled to access the judgment of Venning J declining Rafiq’s application for leave but declined the application for access to the application itself. Siemer then sought leave to appeal Downs J’s decision and appealed the refusal of leave. The appeal is currently before the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, Siemer applied for judicial review of Downs J’s refusal to grant him access to Rafiq’s application for leave to commence a proceeding. Van Bohemen J dismissed Siemer’s application for judicial review, finding that he had no jurisdiction to review the decision of Downs J. Van Bohemen J held that it is well established that a High Court Judge does not have jurisdiction to review the judicial decisions of another High Court Judge. The High Court cannot review its own decisions; it must determine its own jurisdiction and, if it is responsible for any irregularity, the defect must be corrected by the Court itself or on appeal. Therefore, if Siemer wishes to challenge Downs J’s decision, he will need to do so by way of appeal in accordance with s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The application for judicial review is struck out.

Orders