The security classification framework ..................................................................... [6]
Legitimate expectation – Were Corrections’ policies for security
classification reviews followed and applied consistently? .................................... [18]
Legitimate expectation - relevant legal principles [19] Mr Smith’s 3 December 2014 review and 23 January 2015 reconsideration [23] Mr Smith’s 13 August 2015 review and 17 September 2015 reconsideration [37]
Mr Smith’s 25 February 2016 review and 14 March 2016 reconsideration [42]
Mr Roper’s 16 December 2015 reconsideration [51]
Were material factual errors made? ...................................................................... [55] Factual errors – relevant legal principles [55] Were mistakes of fact made in Mr Smith’s 13 August 2015 review and
17 September 2015 reconsideration? [56]
Was Mr Smith’s security classification initiated on 4 June 2015 made
pursuant to an invalid delegation?......................................................................... [59]
Were the reviews unlawful because they were not completed within
the statutory timeframe (six months)? .................................................................. [65]
Were inadequate written reasons provided for some decisions, in
breach of the Act, Regulations, and natural justice?............................................ [78]
Provision of written reasons - relevant legal principles [80] Mr Smith’s 3 December 2014 review and 23 January 2015 reconsideration [91] Mr Smith’s 13 August 2015 review and 17 September 2015 reconsideration [99] Mr Smith’s 25 February 2016 review and 14 March 2016 reconsideration [103] Mr Roper’s 28 April 2015 review and 29 May 2015 reconsideration [108] Mr Roper’s 23 November 2015 review and 16 December 2015
reconsideration [110]
Were the 25 February 2016 review and 14 March 2016 reconsideration
decisions relating to Mr Smith unreasonable?.................................................... [113]
Mr Smith’s prison-based employment ................................................................. [117] Relevant facts [118] Is the decision to dismiss Mr Smith amenable to judicial review? [124]
Summary and conclusions .................................................................................... [134] Legitimate expectation [136] Factual errors [141] Invalid delegation [142] Statutory time frame [143] Inadequate written reasons [144] Unreasonableness [147] Prison-based employment [148]
What is the appropriate relief?............................................................................. [149] Relief in judicial review proceedings – relevant legal principles [150] Appropriate relief in this case [157]
Result .................................................................................................................[164]
Introduction
[1] Phillip John Smith and Nikki David Roper are serving prisoners. Mr Smith is serving a term of life imprisonment for the murder of the father of a boy he had sexually…
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 Smith v Attorney-General
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Smith v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 136
Case
[2017] NZHC 136
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Phillip John Smith and Nikki David Roper, serving prisoners, sought judicial review of their security classification reviews conducted by the Department of Corrections (Corrections) from late 2014 to early 2016. The plaintiffs alleged that there were numerous errors in the processes followed, resulting in them being wrongly classified as maximum security prisoners. Mr Smith also challenged Corrections' decision to dismiss him from his prison-based employment.
The key issues included whether Mr Smith and Mr Roper's legitimate expectations that Corrections' policies would be consistently applied were frustrated, whether material factual errors were made in Mr Smith's reviews, whether Mr Smith's 25 February 2016 review and reconsideration were unreasonable, whether Mr Smith's 25 June 2015 security classification review was decided by an invalid delegation, whether the plaintiffs' reviews were unlawful because they were not completed within the statutory timeframe, whether inadequate written reasons were provided for some decisions, and whether Mr Smith's prison-based employment decisions were amenable to judicial review.
The court found that Mr Smith's 3 December 2014 and 13 August 2015 reviews and reconsiderations, and Mr Roper's 16 December 2015 reconsideration, were conducted in breach of Corrections' policies and the plaintiffs' legitimate expectations. The court also found that Mr Smith's 13 August 2015 and 25 February 2016 reviews and reconsiderations, and Mr Roper's 23 November 2015 review and reconsideration, were completed out of time in breach of the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the court found that inadequate reasons were provided for Mr Smith's 13 August 2015 and 25 February 2016 reviews and reconsiderations, and Mr Roper's 23 November 2015 review and reconsideration, in breach of the Act, Regulations, and natural justice. However, the court found that Mr Smith's 25 February 2016 review and reconsideration, and Mr Roper's 28 April 2015 review and reconsideration, were not unreasonable. Lastly, the court found that the decision to terminate Mr Smith's employment within prison was an operational decision not amenable to judicial review.
The court declined to quash the challenged security classification decisions, as they were no longer operative. However, the court made declarations in respect of the specific procedural errors that had been proven, holding Corrections accountable for the procedural shortcomings and providing guidance for the future. The plaintiffs were also entitled to reimbursement of any reasonable disbursements, including any Court filing fees.