Taunoa v Attorney-General - [2006] NZSC 95

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 6/2006
[2006] NZSC 95

BETWEENCHRISTOPHER HAPIMANA BEN MARK TAUNOA AND ORS

Appellants and Cross-Respondent

ANDTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOR

Respondents

Hearing:2 November 2006

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Henry JJ
Counsel:T Ellis, D La Hood and A C Wills for Appellants and Cross-Respondent

C Gwyn, D J Boldt and B Keith for Respondents

Judgment:13 November 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT – APPLICATION FOR STAY, STRIKING OUT OR DECLARATION OF INCONSISTENCY

The application is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       The appellants and the cross-respondent have brought an application seeking a stay or striking out of the cross-appeal. They say that because of the enactment of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 the hearing of the cross-appeal cannot be fair. In the alternative, they ask the Court to make a declaration that the Act is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
[2]       The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act came into force on 4 June 2005, at a time when a decision from the Court of Appeal in this case was reserved after a hearing which concluded on 2 June. In brief, the Act places certain restrictions on the disposition of monetary compensation or damages which the Crown may be ordered to pay to a person under control or supervision (including a prisoner). It requires the amount to be held for a period by the Secretary for Justice and facilitates the making of claims against the fund so constituted by any victims of such persons.
[3]       Mr Ellis mounted a strong attack on the Act, advising the Court that it clearly affected the remedy in this case of the appellants and the cross-respondent and asserting that it makes it impossible for the appeal relating to compensation to be a fair appeal. It has, he said, restricted access to this Court and thereby denied an effective remedy.
[4]       We cannot see how that can be so, since the Act places no restriction on the ability of the Court to determine the issues before it, on which it has given leave, namely whether any monetary compensation should properly have been awarded to the appellants and the cross-respondent and, if so, the appropriate sums. The Act will operate only after those questions have been determined and obviously will have no operation at all if the first of them is given a negative answer. The Court is not in the least inhibited by the Act in making the necessary determinations on the cross-appeal nor are the parties in any way precluded by it in the arguments they present to the Court.[1]
[1]The appellants formally sought by their own appeals an increase in the sums awarded to them but counsel has told the Court that this is not pressed and was “rhetorical”. The Court would not, in any event, have been prevented by the Act from ordering payment of greater sums if those quantum appeals had actually been advanced.
[5]       Therefore, assuming but not deciding that…

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 Taunoa v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Taunoa v Attorney-General [2006] NZSC 95
Case: [2006] NZSC 95
Decision Date: 10 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taunoa v Attorney-General involved Christopher Hapimana Ben Mark Taunoa and others as appellants against the Attorney General and another respondent. The dispute centred around the effect of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 on the fairness of the appeal hearing. The appellants argued that the Act, which imposed restrictions on the disposition of monetary compensation or damages to be paid by the Crown to persons under control or supervision, affected their remedy and rendered the appeal unfair. They sought either a stay or striking out of the cross-appeal or a declaration that the Act was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The legal issues before the court were whether the Act inhibited the court's ability to determine the appeal and whether the court had jurisdiction to declare the Act inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand found that the Act did not restrict the court's ability to determine the issues of the appeal, namely whether compensation should have been awarded and, if so, the appropriate sums. The court held that the Act would only operate after these questions had been decided, and would not affect the court's determinations. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for a stay, striking out, or a declaration of inconsistency. The court reasoned that the Act did not inhibit the appeal proceedings and that the appellants had not established a substantive basis for such relief. Furthermore, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to make a declaration of inconsistency, as the issue had not been before the High Court or the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that any potential relief would need to be sought in the High Court, which has original jurisdiction.

Orders