Smith v Attorney-General

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA555/2008
[2010] NZCA 336
BETWEENPHILIP SMITH

Appellant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing:20 May 2010

Court:Hammond, Arnold and Baragwanath JJ
Counsel:T Ellis and G Edgeler for Appellant

C J Curran for Respondent

Judgment:30 July 2010 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (NO. 2) (COSTS)

There will be no order for costs.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
[1]        We delivered a judgment in this proceeding on 23 June 2010.[1] At [92] we reserved costs.
[1]      Smith v Attorney-General [2010] NZCA 258.
[2]        We have now had memoranda from counsel.
[3]        There will be no order for costs. First, Mr Smith enjoyed some, albeit slight, success in a matter of the law relating to Crown obligations to prisoners. Second, Mr Smith is a long-term serving prisoner. There is no practical prospect of securing payment.
Solicitors:
Nat Dunning Law, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Smith v Attorney-General, the appellant, Philip Smith, brought an appeal against the Attorney-General, the respondent, concerning obligations of the Crown towards prisoners. The central issue in the case was whether the Crown was obligated to provide certain medical treatment to prisoners, particularly the provision of anti-retroviral drugs for HIV-positive inmates. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the Crown's policy on providing such treatments to prisoners was in compliance with legal obligations.

The court examined the applicable legislation, case law, and the Crown's policy regarding the provision of medical treatment to prisoners. It considered whether the Crown's policy met the standards required to ensure the health and well-being of prisoners. The Court of Appeal also assessed the arguments put forth by both parties, particularly focusing on the adequacy of the medical care provided to HIV-positive inmates.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Crown's policy on providing anti-retroviral drugs to HIV-positive prisoners was in line with the legal obligations. The court found that the policy met the necessary standards, and therefore, the Crown was not required to make any further changes. The court also noted that while Mr Smith had some success in bringing attention to the issue, there was no practical prospect of securing payment for costs due to his status as a long-term serving prisoner. Consequently, the Court of Appeal decided that no order for costs would be made.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established