Legal Research
Cases
Siemer v Attorney-General

Siemer v Attorney-General

Case [2022] NZHC 2643 14 October 2022

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Public Interest

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-2797

[2022] NZHC 2643

UNDER s 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 and s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and the rights of review in the circumstances of these pleadings as defined by Taito v R [2002] UKPC 1.

IN THE MATTER

of judicial review and declaratory relief

against an administrative refusal to comply with a statutory request for a public court document

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Respondent

Hearing: 15 June 2022 (with additional material on 13 October 2022)

Appearances:

Applicant in person

A M Powell and R M McMenamin for the Respondent

Judgment:

14 October 2022

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 October 2022 at 4:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

SIEMER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2022] NZHC 2643 [14 October 2022]

[1] Mr Siemer applies for judicial review of a decision of a Judge of this Court refusing him access to documents on a Court file in another matter.

[2] One of the primary issues raised by the application is whether this Court’s judicial review jurisdiction extends to decisions of Judges of this Court.

Background

[3] On 7 October 2019, Mr Siemer applied to access documents on the Court file for an application by Mr Rafiq for leave to commence a proceeding. Mr Rafiq’s application for leave had been declined by Venning J in a judgment dated 29 May 2019.1

[4] Mr Siemer’s application was determined by Downs J in a Minute dated 24 October 2019.2 After recording that there were only three documents on the Court file, the Judge granted Mr Siemer access to the judgment of Venning J but declined access to the other two documents – Mr Rafiq’s proposed proceeding and his application for leave. The Judge’s reasons for declining access to those two documents were:

Venning J concluded that the proposed proceeding was frivolous and vexatious. Dissemination of related paperwork is contrary to public interest. As Venning J observed, the “proposed statement of claim is abusive and a nonsense”.

[5] Mr Siemer sought leave from Downs J to appeal his decision to the Court of Appeal. On 18 December 2019, Downs J declined leave to appeal.3

[6]On the same day, Mr Siemer commenced this judicial review proceeding.4

1      Rafiq v Whata J [2019] NZHC 1193. Leave was required as Mr Rafiq was subject to an order under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908.
2      Re Rafiq, CIV-2019-404-000934.
3      Siemer v Auckland High Court [2019] NZHC 3393, [2019] 25 PRNZ 561.
4      The application for judicial review was heard by me following the Court of Appeal’s decision in
Siemer v Attorney-General [2022] NZCA 26.

Discussion

[7] Applications for access to documents on a…

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 Siemer v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Siemer v Attorney-General [2022] NZHC 2643
Case: [2022] NZHC 2643
Decision Date: 14 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Siemer v Attorney-General, Vincent Ross Siemer sought judicial review of a decision made by Downs J, a Judge of the High Court of New Zealand, which had refused him access to certain documents on a Court file. The case raised significant questions about the extent of the Court's jurisdiction in reviewing decisions made by its own Judges. Specifically, Siemer argued that the Court’s judicial review jurisdiction should extend to decisions made by Judges in their administrative capacity. Siemer contended that the decision to deny him access to certain documents was administrative and thus subject to judicial review. He further argued that the denial was unlawful based on various public interest considerations and principles of open justice.

The Court thoroughly examined the nature of the decision and the applicable principles of judicial review. It found that the decision to decline access to the documents was not administrative but a judicial decision made by Downs J in accordance with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The Court noted that the Rules explicitly require Judges to determine access requests according to prescribed criteria, making such decisions judicial in nature. Moreover, the Court cited appellate decisions confirming that it does not assert jurisdiction to review its own decisions, reinforcing that such challenges must be pursued through appeal or other specified mechanisms. The Court also clarified that s 27(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 does not extend judicial review to decisions of superior Courts. Consequently, the Court concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear judicial review proceedings in relation to the decision made by Downs J.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed Siemer's application for judicial review. The Court considered it inappropriate to address the lawfulness of Downs J’s decision given the availability of appeal processes and the recent Court of Appeal judgment, which indicated that Siemer did not require leave to appeal the earlier decision due to the expiration of a relevant order.

Orders