Tarrant v Attorney-General

[2024] NZHC 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-000457

[2024] NZHC 99

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

BRENTON HARRISON TARRANT

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Respondent

Hearing:

7 February 2024

Appearances:

T A Simmonds for Applicant

A M Powell and K E E Whiting for Respondents

Judgment:

7 February 2024

RULING (2)/ORDER OF VENNING J

This ruling was delivered by me on 7 February 2024 at 2.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Crown Law Office, Wellington Counsel:        T A Simmonds, Auckland

Copy to:            Media

TARRANT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2024] NZHC 99 [7 February 2024]

[1]    Following the Court’s oral delivery of Ruling 1, Mr Powell received advice from Corrections that Mr Tarrant wished to speak with Mr Simmonds. The Court took an adjournment to enable Mr Simmonds to speak with Mr Tarrant and to obtain any necessary further instructions.

[2]    When the Court resumed Mr Simmonds advised the Court that Mr Tarrant’s firm instructions to him were to abandon this application for judicial review. Mr Simmonds confirmed he had advised Mr Tarrant of the consequences and implication of abandoning the proceeding but Mr Tarrant was firm in his instructions that that was what he wished to do.

[3]    This is a civil proceeding brought by Mr Tarrant. It is open to him to abandon the proceedings if that is his wish. Mr Powell accepted that as an application for judicial review, there is no res judicata as such. However any future application of a similar nature would need to be based on a decision that is not the subject of the present proceeding. Mr Simmonds is an experienced counsel. The Court is satisfied that Mr Tarrant is well aware of the consequences and implications of his instructions to Mr Simmonds. In the circumstances this application for judicial review is dismissed. At Mr Powell’s request I reserve the issue of costs.

[4]    With the dismissal of the application and the application not proceeding to be heard on its merits, Mr Simmonds advised that his instructions were to renew the application that there be no report of this morning’s hearing. Mr Simmonds submitted that his instructions were that there would be little public interest in the abandonment/dismissal of the proceeding and to the extent there was any residual public interest it was outweighed by the inevitable humiliation and distress that would be caused to Mr Tarrant.

[5]    Largely for the principles articulated in Ruling 1 and the reasons given in that ruling, any embarrassment, humiliation or distress caused to Mr Tarrant by publicity of what has occurred in Court this morning and the outcome of Mr Tarrant’s application is insufficient to support the order sought. There has already been reporting of the fact of Mr Tarrant’s application for judicial review. As noted, the

merits of the application were not engaged with. There will be no detail in the reporting of this morning’s hearing of the detailed factual evidence contained in the affidavits that are before the Court as they have not been referred to. However, the public, through the media, are entitled to know what took place in Court this morning and the outcome of Mr Tarrant’s application for judicial review.

Venning J