Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v Attorney-General

Taylor v Attorney-General

Case [2022] NZHC 3170 30 November 2022

Jurisdiction

Standing

Admissibility of Evidence

Issue Estoppel

Specific Performance

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2022-485-032

[2022] NZHC 3170

UNDER the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal from the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal

BETWEEN

SAM TE HEI

Appellant

AND

IDA HAWKINS

Respondent

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Intervener

Hearing: 13 June 2022

Appearances:

A J Ellis for the Appellant

N M Pender for the Respondent
J B Watson for the Attorney-General

Judgment:

30 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Counsel/Solicitors
A J Ellis, Barrister, Wellington
N M Pender, Barrister, Wellington Nat Dunning Law, Wellington
Crown Law Office, Wellington

TE HEI v HAWKINS [2022] NZHC 3170 [30 November 2022]

Summary

[1] Mr Sam Te Hei was convicted of murdering Mrs Ida Hawkins’ daughter. After he was awarded compensation for breach of his rights in prison, the Victims’ Special Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) awarded Mrs Hawkins $15,000 compensation for emotional harm under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 (the Act). Mr Te Hei appeals on five grounds. Mrs Hawkins cross-appeals the decision not to award her exemplary damages.

[2] Mrs Hawkins was a victim entitled to make a claim under the Act. She suffered loss for which she did not receive effective redress. And the procedural defects Mr Te Hei complains of, lack of a fair process, an error in one finding, and invalid appointment of the Tribunal, are not sustained. But the Act requires that Mrs Hawkins must have a claim disclosing a cause of action for which damages are payable under the general law. The Tribunal did not rigorously analyse the merits of her claim. The Acts it identified do not provide causes of action upon which Mrs Hawkins can sue at general law. Assault and battery are common law causes of action but lie at the suit of the person assaulted or battered, not a third party. A family member can pursue a cause of action that would have been available to a deceased under the Death by Accidents Compensation Act 1952 (DBAC Act), but only damages for pecuniary benefits are available. Accordingly, Mrs Hawkins is not entitled to damages for emotional harm on the basis found by the Tribunal. Neither is she entitled to exemplary damages, for similar reasons.

The Tribunal’s decision

[3] The Act requires compensation paid to prisoners for breach of their rights by the Crown to be paid to the Crown in trust, administered by the Secretary for Justice. Under s 46 a claimant is able to claim funds from the Tribunal if: they are a victim of the relevant prisoner; suffered injury, loss or damage for which they have not received effective redress; and they have a cause of action for damages payable, under the general law, against the offender based on acts or omissions done in committing the offence.

[4] On 19 November 1987, Mr Te Hei and another man were convicted of murdering 16-year-old Colleen Burrows and sentenced to life imprisonment. On 14 August 2020,…

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 [2022] NZHC 3170
Case: [2022] NZHC 3170
Decision Date: 30 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Taylor v Attorney-General, the High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal and cross-appeal regarding the award of compensation under the Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005. Mr. Sam Te Hei, convicted of murdering Mrs. Ida Hawkins' daughter, was awarded compensation for breaches of his rights in prison. Subsequently, the Victims' Special Claims Tribunal awarded Mrs. Hawkins $15,000 for emotional harm. Mr. Te Hei appealed the decision on multiple grounds, while Mrs. Hawkins cross-appealed the decision not to award her exemplary damages.

The court examined whether Mrs. Hawkins qualified as a victim under the Act and if she had a cause of action for which damages were payable under the general law. The court found that Mrs. Hawkins was indeed a victim under the definition in the Act, but the Tribunal failed to rigorously analyze the merits of her claim. The court concluded that the Act did not provide Mrs. Hawkins with a cause of action for damages for emotional harm, as the relevant statutes identified did not provide such a cause of action at general law. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the award of $15,000 for emotional harm was quashed.

In regards to the cross-appeal, the court determined that Mrs. Hawkins was not entitled to exemplary damages, as the relevant statutes did not allow for such damages, and the Court of Appeal's decision in Pou v British American Tobacco (New Zealand) Ltd applied. The cross-appeal was dismissed.

Final orders:
- The appeal by Mr. Te Hei is allowed, and the Tribunal's award of $15,000 for emotional harm is quashed.
- The cross-appeal by Mrs. Hawkins is dismissed.

Orders