Singh v New Zealand Parole Board

[2023] NZHC 66

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-765

[2023] NZHC 66

BETWEEN

PARMINDER SINGH

Applicant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD

First Respondent

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Respondent

Hearing:

1 February 2023 (Teleconference)

Counsel:

Applicant in Person (at commencement of teleconference only) V Owen for First Respondent

M J Mortimer-Wang for Second Respondent

Judgment:

2 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Background

[1]                  Mr Singh was a serving prisoner. He was granted parole subject to conditions including a curfew. With the assistance of a lawyer, he commenced proceedings by way of judicial review challenging the decision of the Parole Board to impose a curfew. Subsequently, the Parole Board resolved to remove the curfew condition. While Mr Singh was originally represented by counsel at the time he filed these proceedings, it appears that he is now self-represented and has been for some months.

SINGH v THE NZ PAROLE BOARD & ORS [2023] NZHC [66] [2 February 2023]

[2]                  Mr Singh’s proceeding came before me today for a case management conference. It followed  a  call  in  a  Judge’s  Chambers  List  before  Cooke J  on  12 December 2022. His Honour’s minute records that no appearance was made by or on behalf of Mr Singh on that occasion and that:

… if Mr Singh is to proceed with this judicial review proceeding he needs to file an amended statement of claim given that the primary ground of his claim has now been rendered moot by the decision of the Parole Board to remove the curfew condition.

[3]                  When the teleconference commenced today, initially Mr Singh entered an appearance. However, during the appearances by counsel it seems Mr Singh disconnected himself from the call and played no further part in the teleconference.

[4]                  In advance of the teleconference, Mr Mortimer-Wang for the Department of Corrections filed a memorandum indicating that the respondents informally seek an order striking out the proceeding on the basis that the current application for judicial review is now moot given the subsequent decision of the Parole Board to remove a curfew condition.

[5]                  Counsel  also  advised  the  Court  that  since  the  call  before  Cooke J  on  12 December 2022 he had sought to make contact with Mr Singh to ensure he was aware of developments on his case. Mr Mortimer-Wang advised me that he is not aware of any email address for Mr Singh but that earlier correspondence couriered to his address has not been returned. In addition, during a telephone call to Mr Singh on 19 January 2023, Mr Singh suggested that he did not believe there is or should be any active proceeding before the Court and is “disinclined to participate”. Counsel also advised that further efforts to discuss procedural issues with Mr Singh were “cut short by Mr Singh not wanting to speak”. That reported pattern of behaviour is consistent with what appeared to be Mr Singh’s choice to disconnect himself from the teleconference today without warning or further comment.

[6]                  For these reasons, the Chief Executive of Corrections submits that the appropriate course is for the Court to strike out the proceeding for want of prosecution on the basis that course:

(a)reflects Mr Singh’s non-participation;

(b)is consistent with Mr Singh’s apparent view that he has no active proceeding before the Court; and

(c)does not prejudice Mr Singh’s ability to institute fresh proceedings should he wish to do so.

[7]                  Helpfully, counsel for the respondents also confirmed that should the proceeding be struck out in this informal way, they would be content for costs to lie where they fall.

Consideration

[8]Given that:

(a)Mr Singh is not legally represented;

(b)has failed to make any meaningful appearance before the Court on two calls of his proceeding since December 2022;

(c)has not filed any memoranda or other papers in support of his proceeding since his curfew was revoked;

(d)the likelihood that his proceeding is now moot and the question of whether any further relief (such as a declaration) is warranted; and

(e)Mr Singh has the ability to commence fresh proceedings should he wish to do so—

I am satisfied that it is appropriate in the circumstances to strike the proceeding out for want of prosecution. To require the respondents to continue to incur costs engaging with a proceeding that for all appearances Mr Singh has abandoned would be inimical to the interests of justice.

[9]                  Accordingly, and without prejudice to Mr Singh’s ability to commence fresh proceedings challenging the conditions of his parole, I make an order under r 15.1 of the High Court Rules 2016 striking out the proceeding. Costs will they lie where they fall.

Isac J