Taylor v Manager of Auckland Prison

[2012] NZHC 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-006168 [2012] NZHC 1204

UNDER  the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908

IN THE MATTER OF     of an application for a declaration that a rule promulgated by the Manager of Auckland Prison forbidding any prisoner to smoke or possess tobacco is unlawful

BETWEEN  ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR Plaintiff

ANDTHE MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON

Defendant

Hearing:         17 May 2012

Counsel:         C J Tennet for the Plaintiff

G J Robins for the Defendant
M Reddy for the Department of Corrections

Judgment:      31 May 2012

RESULT JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 31 May 2012 at 11.00 am, pursuant to

r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

TAYLOR v MANAGER OF AUCKLAND PRISON HC AK CIV-2011-404-006168 [31 May 2012]

[1]      On  1  June  2011,  the  defendant,  the  Manager  of  the  Auckland  Prison, instituted a rule forbidding any prisoner at Auckland Prison from smoking tobacco or any other substance, or having in their possession any tobacco or tobacco related item on Auckland Prison property.   The plaintiff, Mr Taylor, who is an inmate of Auckland Prison, commenced this proceeding challenging the legality of this rule.

[2]      There are two interlocutory applications before me for determination.  One is brought  by  the  defendant.    He  seeks  an  order  that  Mr  Taylor,  who  will  be representing himself at the substantive hearing of this proceeding, participate in the hearing by audio-visual link.   The other is brought by Mr Taylor, who seeks the appointment of counsel to assist the Court.

[3]      During the course of the hearing, Mr Taylor brought to my attention his prison management plan, which restricts his access to computers and the library.  He could not give me a copy of the plan, as he was attending the hearing by audio-visual link.

[4]      I asked the defendant to provide me with a copy of the plan.  To date, I have not received it.

[5]      I considered the plan had some relevance to the decision on the appointment of counsel to assist the Court.  For this reason, I had delayed delivering a judgment until I received a copy of the plan.  However, the hearing is on 11 June 2012.  I can no longer wait to receive this document.  If counsel is appointed, that counsel will need time to prepare for the hearing.  I have decided, therefore, to proceed to deal with the application to appoint counsel.

[6]      To expedite matters, I intend to provide a result only judgment today, with reasons to  follow, which will be delivered  when  I deliver the judgment on the defendant’s application.

[7]      I have decided that counsel to assist the Court should be appointed.   The person appointed will be required to have experience in public law litigation.

Duffy J

Counsel:     C J Tennet P O Box 12456 Thorndon Wellington 6140 for the Plaintiff

Solicitors:    Crown Law P O Box 2858 Wellington 6140 for the Defendant

Copies To:   Department of Corrections Private Bag 1206 Wellington 6140

Hickey Law (J P Hickey) P O Box 100802 North Shore Auckland 0745

A W Taylor Private Bag 50124 Albany North Shore Auckland 0752

Media Works 3 News TV Works Ltd (A Harley, Chief of Staff, C Bradley, Legal Counsel;   M   Morrah,   Journalist)   Private   Bag   92624   Symonds   Street Auckland 1150