Sweeney v The Prison Manager, Spring Hill Corrections Facility - [2021] NZHC 181

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2019-419-49

[2021] NZHC 181

BETWEEN
PAUL TUKUNOA SWEENEY

Applicant

AND

THE PRISON MANAGER, SPRING HILL CORRECTIONS FACILITY

Respondent

Hearing: 10 September 2020 with further submissions 17 September 2020

Appearances:

C T Gudsell QC and R J Southall for the applicant K E Hogan and M R Graham for the respondent

Judgment:

17 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 17 February 2021 at 4.00 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
C T Gudsell QC, Hamilton
K E Hogan, Barrister, Auckland McKenna King Ltd, Hamilton Crown Law, Wellington

SWEENEY v THE PRISON MANAGER, SPRING HILL CORRECTIONS FACILITY [2021] NZHC 181
[17 February 2021]

Summary

[1] In October 2014, the Department of Corrections approved Mr Paul Sweeney as a specified visitor to the Spring Hill Corrections Facility (Spring Hill). The approval was necessary for Mr Sweeney’s work for CareNZ as an Addictions Counsellor at Spring Hill. Mr Sweeney was in a good position to undertake that work because he was decades clear of addiction, criminal offending and involvement in the Mongrel Mob. In April 2016, the Prison Manager revoked Mr Sweeney’s approval because of concerns that Mr Sweeney maintained an active association with the Mongrel Mob and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his visit to a self- care unit. But Mr Sweeney and CareNZ had provided compelling explanations to Corrections that he did not have any active association with the Mob and he thought he had permission to visit the self-care unit to pray with an outgoing prisoner. While the revocation decision did not breach Mr Sweeney’s right to natural justice, it was unlawful because it was unreasonable. In order to uphold Mr Paul Sweeney’s mana, and vindicate his rights, I declare that the decision of the Prison Manager at Spring Hill to revoke Mr Sweeney’s specified visitor approval was unreasonable and therefore unlawful.

What happened?

Mr Sweeney

[2] Mr Sweeney, in his late 50s, was a drug treatment counsellor from 2014 to 2016. He brought to that role his experience of significant criminal convictions from 1975 to 1991 and many years of gang life which he left behind after 1991.1 To do so, he had to sever connections with family and friends and says “[i]t has been a lonely journey”.2 He is now “30 years drug and alcohol free and out of prison”.3 He published and distributed a book about his own past criminal offending and subsequent reform, citing his faith as central to rebuilding his life.4 He states that the years he has spent

1 Affidavit of Paul Sweeney, 18 February 2019 [Sweeney Affidavit] at [68] and [69].
2 At [70].
3 Reply Affidavit of Paul Sweeney, 19 August 2020 [Sweeney Reply Affidavit] at [25].
4 Sweeney Affidavit at Exhibit E.

working towards reform have…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sweeney v The Prison Manager, Spring Hill Corrections Facili... and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZHC 181
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Paul Sweeney, sought a declaration that the decision by the respondent, the Prison Manager at Spring Hill Corrections Facility, to revoke his status as a specified visitor to the facility was unlawful. The revocation was based on concerns about Mr Sweeney’s association with the Mongrel Mob and his visit to a self-care unit within the prison. Mr Sweeney had been approved as a specified visitor to the facility in 2014 and had worked there for CareNZ as an Addictions Counsellor from October 2014 to April 2016. Mr Sweeney had been decades clear of addiction, criminal offending and gang involvement at the time of his approval. He had dedicated himself to helping others do the same. In April 2016, the respondent revoked Mr Sweeney’s specified visitor status after concerns were raised about his association with the Mongrel Mob and his visit to the self-care unit. The revocation decision was based on Mr Sweeney’s association with the Mongrel Mob and his lack of a satisfactory explanation for his visit to the self-care unit. However, Mr Sweeney had provided compelling explanations for both issues. He had no active association with the Mob, and his explanation for his visit to the self-care unit was understandable and supported by the evidence. Given Mr Sweeney’s explanations, the decision to revoke his status was inconsistent with, and contrary to, the evidence on which it was based. The decision was unreasonable and therefore unlawful. The Court held that a declaration was appropriate to vindicate Mr Sweeney’s rights and uphold his mana.

Orders