Introduction, Structure and Legal Framework[1] Chapter 1: Directed Segregation and Conditions of Detention[46] Chapter 2: Fires[447]
Chapter 3: The Truth Newspaper Ban[518]
Chapter 4: Rehabilitation and Parole [568]
Chapter 5: Transfer to Waikeria Prison[621]
Chapter 6: Strip Searches and Mechanical Restraints[788]
Conclusion and Summary of Results[835]
INTRODUCTION, STRUCTURE AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK
[1] Mr Arthur Taylor, the plaintiff, is a well-known former prisoner and prisoner rights advocate. He has made a significant contribution to the development of New Zealand’s constitutional law and brought numerous proceedings—many successful— for the benefit of others.
[2] This proceeding has a more personal focus. In it, Mr Taylor seeks public law damages against the Department of Corrections of $1.45 million relating to his treatment as an inmate. The claims are wide-ranging, spanning events from June 2011 until March 2018. Mr Taylor alleges serious mistreatment, designed to disrupt his legal work against Corrections and to prevent him assisting other prisoners to assert their basic rights. Except in one respect, the claims are advanced as breaches of rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
[3] During the trial both parties referred to the different elements of Mr Taylor’s claims as “chapters”, and I have adopted the same term in this judgment. Each chapter represents a discrete aspect of Mr Taylor’s detention that could have been the subject of a separate judgment. As my consideration of the issues is consistent with the chapters identified by the parties, it is helpful to begin with a broad over-view:
(a)Chapter 1 relates to a period between 2011 and 2012 when Mr Taylor was placed on “directed segregation”. This had the effect of limiting his contact with other prisoners. Mr Taylor says the decisions and processes leading to his directed segregation were unlawful and for an improper purpose, and that the conditions and duration of his detention were such as to constitute both a breach of s 9 of the Bill of Rights, the prohibition on torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, and s 23(5), the positive duty to treat those in detention humanely and with respect (at [46] below).
(b)Chapter 2 relates to a series of three fires lit by another prisoner close to Mr Taylor’s cell in Auckland Prison in 2011 and 2012. Mr Taylor claims that acts or omissions of Corrections resulted both in a breach of
a duty of care in negligence, and a further breach of s 23(5) of the Bill…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Taylor v Attorney General [2022] NZCA 3170
Case
[2022] NZCA 3170
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Arthur William Taylor brought a claim against the Attorney-General for public law damages of $1.45 million, relating to his treatment as an inmate in New Zealand's correctional facilities. The claims spanned events from June 2011 until March 2018 and alleged serious mistreatment designed to disrupt Taylor's legal work against Corrections and to prevent him from assisting other prisoners to assert their basic rights. Taylor's claims were wide-ranging and were advanced as breaches of rights and freedoms in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The court considered the claims in six "chapters" and found that Taylor was entitled to relief in respect of his claims relating to directed segregation and conditions of detention, and the prohibition on Truth newspaper. The court found that Taylor's claims relating to fires, rehabilitation and parole, transfer to Waikeria Prison, and strip searches and mechanical restraints were dismissed. The court awarded Taylor $6,000 in damages for his claim relating to directed segregation and conditions of detention, and made a declaration in relation to his claim relating to the Truth newspaper ban. Costs were reserved pending further consideration.