Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 59/2014
[2014] NZSC 100

BETWEEN

VINCENT ROSS SIEMER
Applicant

AND

REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person H M Carrad for Respondents
Judgment:	5 August 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Clifford J delivered in the High Court striking out judicial review proceedings he had commenced in respect of a decision by the Registrar of this Court declining to make available to him copies of all applications for leave to appeal and associated submissions so that he can post them on a website and make them generally available.[1] This refusal was in both general terms, in response to an email of 2 October 2013 from Mr Siemer, and also particular to a specific application for leave to appeal, Harrison v Auckland District Health Board.[2] Based on his analysis of the judgment of this Court in Mafart v Television New Zealand Limited[3] the Judge concluded that any challenge to the Registrar’s decision (or decisions) would have to be made direct to judges of this Court.
[1]Siemer v Registrar, Supreme Court [2014] NZHC 1179.
[2]Harrison v Auckland District Health Board [2013] NZSC 98.
[3]Mafart v Television New Zealand Limited [2006] NZSC 33, [2006] NZLR 18.
The application falls to be determined under s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. If this Court is ultimately required to determine the procedural issue – as to whether judicial review is available in the High Court in respect of the Registrar’s decisions – it will be much assisted by the views of the Court of Appeal. The applicant could avoid this procedural question by having the underlying substantive issue – as to access to applications for leave to appeal and submissions – determined on direct application for review of the Registrar’s decisions. For these reasons the s 14 test has not been satisfied.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vincent Ross Siemer sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed his judicial review proceedings against the Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Siemer sought to compel the Registrar to provide him with copies of all applications for leave to appeal and related submissions. His intention was to post these documents on a website and make them publicly accessible. Clifford J dismissed Siemer's application, concluding that any challenge to the Registrar's decisions should be made directly to the Supreme Court judges. The Supreme Court considered the application for leave to appeal under section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Court found that the application did not satisfy the section 14 test because it would be more appropriate to seek direct review of the Registrar’s decisions. This approach would allow the substantive issue of access to the applications for leave to appeal and submissions to be addressed directly.

The Court held that the appeal did not meet the criteria set out in section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The decision to dismiss the application for leave to appeal was based on the procedural issue that the challenge to the Registrar's decisions should have been made directly to the Supreme Court judges. The Court reasoned that the High Court should not have entertained the judicial review proceedings. Furthermore, the Court found that Siemer could have avoided the procedural issue by directly applying to the Supreme Court for review of the Registrar’s decisions. The Supreme Court concluded that the application did not satisfy the section 14 test, as it would be more appropriate for Siemer to seek direct review of the substantive issue.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established