Taylor v Attorney-General - [2021] NZHC 1546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2017-485-802

[2021] NZHC 1546

BETWEEN
ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Applicant

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Hearing: 8 June 2021

Appearances:

Applicant in person

S M Kinsler and V Squires for respondent

Judgment:

25 June 2021

REASONS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

Introduction and background

[1] In this proceeding Mr Arthur Taylor sues the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown alleging mistreatment by the authorities during a period of imprisonment. It is unnecessary to particularise Mr Taylor’s allegations for the purposes of the present interlocutory application. Mr Taylor’s proceeding was commenced in 2019 and the interlocutory stages of the litigation have been protracted and fraught.

[2] Mr Taylor is writing a book. The book is apparently entitled Prison Break: The Extraordinary Life & Crimes of New Zealand’s Most Infamous Escapee, and is an autobiographical account of Mr Taylor’s life. I am told the book is scheduled for release in August 2021.

[3] In the course of discovery, the Crown discovered camera footage of Mr Taylor’s transfer between Auckland and Waikeria Prisons in December 2017. One

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 1546 [25 June 2021]

of Mr Taylor’s allegations is that this transfer was effected by the authorities in a way which breached his rights. The footage is therefore relevant, perhaps especially so if, as he says, Mr Taylor was unconscious for much of the time.

[4] Whilst accepting that the footage is relevant and discoverable, the Crown wished to ensure that by discovering the same it did not compromise security at the prisons by revealing the layouts and positioning of CCTV cameras. That such a risk existed was obviously accepted by both parties because in a joint memorandum they sought confidentiality orders. The first paragraph of the memorandum was in the following terms:

This memorandum is jointly filed by the parties to seek confidentiality orders over CCTV footage and on body camera footage held by the Attorney-General. The orders sought relate to camera footage of the plaintiff’s transfer from Auckland Prison to Waikeria Prison on 20 December 2017 (The Confidential Footage). The defendant claims confidentiality in the Confidential Footage on the basis it contains sensitive information including the layout of the Auckland Prison and Waikeria Prison and the position of security cameras at those prisons.

[5]Thus, the parties clearly identified the rationale for the order being sought.

[6] Their memorandum went on to identify the particular camera footage and other material to which it would apply, and set out the agreed restrictions:

By consent, the parties seek the following orders:

(a)The plaintiff will provide a signed undertaking to the defendant that he will treat and maintain the Confidential Footage as confidential prior to being provided with a link that provides a streamed copy of the Confidential Footage. The Confidential Footage will be watermarked as confidential. The streamed copy of the Confidential Footage is to be viewed securely by the plaintiff and only shown to…

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 Taylor v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 1546
Case: [2021] NZHC 1546
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Taylor v Attorney-General, Mr Arthur Taylor applied to quote passages from a medical report prepared by Dr James Freeman in his upcoming book, which is an autobiographical account of Mr Taylor's life and his experiences in prison. The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the report contained sensitive information that should remain confidential. The application was brought as an interlocutory matter before Associate Judge Johnston who found that the material sought to be quoted did not contain any sensitive information and that the purpose of the confidentiality order was not engaged. The judge turned to the two common law principles that would be engaged by Mr Taylor's application. Firstly, a party to litigation obtaining documentation from another party through the mechanism of discovery may not use that documentation for any purpose other than in the litigation itself. Secondly, whilst, in civil litigation, the parties are generally required to exchange briefs of evidence of witnesses prior to trial, briefs remain confidential. The judge found that Mr Taylor needed leave to include the quotes from Dr Freeman's brief of evidence in his book. In coming to that decision, the judge considered a number of factors including the source material on which Dr Freeman comments, whether the comments themselves are inherently confidential and whether there can be any real concern arising from Dr Freeman's comments concerning the involvement of third parties. The judge found that the interests of the open administration of justice and freedom of speech should not be curtailed in this case and granted Mr Taylor leave to quote the seven passages from Dr Freeman's report in his book.

Orders