Hearing:	24 February 2016
Court:	Wild, French and Cooper JJ
Counsel:	H A Cull QC and D A Ewen for Appellant S M Kinsler and A C Walker for Respondent
Judgment:	23 May 2016 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction  [1]
Facts  [6]
High Court judgment  [14]
The arguments on appeal  [23]
Crown immunity  [24]
     Ms Thompson’s submissions  [24]
     The Attorney-General’s submissions  [26]
     Consideration  [28]
Bill of Rights Act  [47]
     Ms Thompson’s submissions  [48]
     The Attorney-General’s submissions  [58]
     Consideration  [61]
Result  [79]

Introduction

The appellant, Camille Thompson, failed to appear in the Wellington District Court on a day when an application by a probation officer for cancellation of a sentence of community work previously imposed on her was called. Unbeknown to the Judge, the application for cancellation of the sentence had previously been dealt with and the sentence cancelled. A warrant for Ms Thompson’s arrest was issued by the Judge and executed by the police. When she was brought before the Court the following day, having been detained for over 15 hours, the duty solicitor successfully applied for her release.
Ms Thompson advanced four tortious claims in the High Court alleging respectively false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, negligence and a claim for “systemic negligence”. A fifth cause of action alleged breach of her rights under s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained.
The claims were made against the Attorney-General on the basis of alleged vicarious responsibility for the omission of a Deputy Registrar serving in the Wellington District Court’s bail room to note the cancellation of the sentence on the Court’s file in circumstances discussed below. There was no claim against the Attorney-General for breaches of the Bill of Rights Act as a result of judicial error.
All Ms Thompson’s claims were rejected by the High Court.[1] She now appeals, alleging that Mackenzie J erred when he held:
(a)the Attorney-General was immune from liability in tort by virtue of s 6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950;
(b)there was an insufficiently proximate relationship between Ms Thompson and the Registrar to give rise to a duty of care;
(c)there was no negligent act or omission; and
(d)Ms Thompson had not been unlawfully detained.
[1]Thompson v Attorney-General [2014] NZHC 2333, (2014) 10 HRNZ 51 [High Court judgment].
The appeal raises issues concerning the proper interpretation of s 6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act, and the barrier it erects to proceedings against the Crown in respect of acts or omissions by those discharging responsibilities of a judicial nature or in connection with the execution of judicial process. We also consider the extent of…

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 Thompson v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Thompson v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 215
Case: [2016] NZCA 215
Decision Date: 23 May 2016 at 3.30 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Thompson v Attorney-General, Camille Thompson sought damages against the Attorney-General for her unlawful arrest and detention. Thompson's arrest followed the failure of court staff to update the electronic case management system to reflect that a judge had cancelled an application to review a sentence previously imposed on Thompson. When Thompson failed to appear in court on the scheduled hearing of the review application, a warrant for her arrest was issued and executed. Thompson brought claims for false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, negligence, and breach of her rights under s 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The High Court dismissed all claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered two issues: whether the Crown was immune from liability in tort under s 6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, and whether Thompson's detention was arbitrary. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Crown was immune from liability for the failure of court staff to update the electronic case management system, and that Thompson's detention was not arbitrary because it was pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge. The Court of Appeal considered that even if the warrant was issued in error, the arrest and detention were not arbitrary because the police acted pursuant to the warrant.

Orders