Legal Research
Cases
Thomas v Police

Thomas v Police

Case [2025] NZHC 1649 19 June 2025

Abuse of Process

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

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-2025-485-263

[2025] NZHC 1649

UNDER
Part 30 of the High Court Rules 2016,

ss 4, 6, 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 3, 30, 39 and 127 of the

Policing Act 2008, s 146 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, and the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

PATRICK ALLAN THOMAS

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Respondent

POLICE PROSECUTION SERVICE and THE CROWN

On the papers:

Counsel:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

19 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

Introduction

[1] On 22 April 2025, Mr Patrick Thomas filed a document described as a statement of claim against the New Zealand Police, seeking judicial review of decisions made by the Police and Police Prosecution Service to prosecute Mr Thomas on three criminal charges of threatening behaviour, threatening to damage property, and wilful damage. Mr Thomas’ document was accompanied by an application for

THOMAS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 1649 [19 June 2025]

judicial review, which largely repeated the same allegations and claims, and other supporting documents.

[2] These documents have been referred to me by the Registrar under r 5.35A of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR) on the basis that, on its face, the statement of claim and judicial review application are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

Relevant law

[3] If I consider that the documents amount to such an abuse of process, under r 5.35B of the HCR I may make any orders or give any directions to ensure the proceeding is disposed of, or that it proceeds in a manner that complies with the HCR, including striking out or staying the proceeding under r 15.1 of the HCR.

[4] When deciding to strike out a proceeding under r 5.35B of the HCR, the Court must determine:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the defendants that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard this Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the document to be regarded as a proper document, or if it were to allow the proceeding to proceed further.2

[5] The power under r 5.35B must be exercised sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases, given that the rule contemplates a litigant being denied the fundamental right of access to the courts, with the possibility of the proceeding being halted before it is even served.3

[6] When considering the application of r 5.35B, the Court must take into account the broad public interest, as well as the private interests of individuals who may

1      Mathiesen v Slevin [2018] NZHC 1032, (2018) 25 PRNZ 116 at [6] citing Mathiesen v Fildes
[2017] NZHC 2258.
2      O’Neill v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2023] NZCA 152 at [30].
3      Te Wakaminenga o Nga Hapu ki Waitangi v…

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 Thomas v Police

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Police [2025] NZHC 1649
Case: [2025] NZHC 1649
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application for judicial review brought by Mr Patrick Thomas against the New Zealand Police and other respondents. Mr Thomas sought to challenge the decision to prosecute him on criminal charges of threatening behaviour, threatening to damage property, and wilful damage. The Court was tasked with determining whether the application amounted to an abuse of process, warranting the striking out of the proceedings under the High Court Rules 2016.

The legal issues before the Court included whether Mr Thomas had a valid cause of action in respect of the Police’s failure to investigate his complaints regarding alleged eviction and theft, and whether the decision to prosecute him was reviewable. Additionally, the Court considered whether Mr Thomas' claims of disproportionate treatment under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 disclosed a valid cause of action. The Court also assessed whether the proceedings amounted to an abuse of process, which would justify striking them out.

The Court found that many of Mr Thomas' claims were meritless. It held that eviction was not a criminal matter and was governed by the Residential Tenancies Act 1996, not within the Police's jurisdiction. The Court further determined that the Policing Act and Crimes Act did not impose a duty on Police to investigate crimes, nor did they provide a basis to challenge a decision to prosecute. Regarding the claim of disproportionate treatment, the Court noted that for treatment to be considered “disproportionately severe,” it must be treatment that New Zealanders would regard as so out of proportion to the circumstances as to cause shock and revulsion, a very high threshold. The Court held that experiencing mental distress did not make the decision to charge Mr Thomas disproportionate. However, the Court found that Mr Thomas may have a salvageable claim regarding the Police’s decision to prosecute him, provided he could better particularise his allegations of misconduct.

Consequently, the Court stayed the proceedings until Mr Thomas filed an amended statement of claim and clarified the status of the prosecution against him. The Court struck out the application for judicial review as repetitive of the statement of claim and ordered that the proceeding would be deemed struck out if the directions were not complied with by 26 July 2025. The Court also advised Mr Thomas of his right to appeal the decision.

The Court’s final orders included staying the proceeding, striking out the application for judicial review, and directing Mr Thomas to file an amended statement of claim and provide further information on the prosecution against him by a specified date. Failure to comply would result in the proceeding being struck out without further order of the Court. If the amended statement of claim complied with the directions, it would be referred to the Court for further determination.

Orders