[1] On 28 July 2010, the plaintiff was sentenced in the District Court at Wellington to 100 hours community work and nine months supervision. When the sentence of community work had not been completed by May 2012, an application was filed by a probation officer in the District Court at Wellington to review the sentence. That application was first called on 6 June 2012. It was adjourned to
25 June 2012, because there was no proof of service of the application on the plaintiff. There were two further adjournments for that same reason, and the application was ultimately listed to be called on 23 July 2012.

[2] Before that hearing, the plaintiff appeared in the Wellington District Court on

18 July 2012 before Judge Blaikie on unrelated charges and was sentenced to

15 months intensive supervision. A probation officer who was present in Court asked that the application to review the aforementioned sentence be dealt with that day, although it had not been listed for hearing that day. Judge Blaikie made an order on the application, cancelling the community work sentence. The making of that order was a final disposition of the application to review the sentence, and the listing of the application scheduled for 23 July 2012 should have been cancelled. It was not. The application was subsequently called on 23 July. There was, unsurprisingly, no appearance by the plaintiff. The presiding Judge issued a warrant to arrest her for failing to appear.

[3] The plaintiff was arrested pursuant to that warrant on 31 July 2012 at about

6.50 pm. She was detained in police custody overnight and appeared in the Wellington District Court the following morning, 1 August 2012. By then, the mistake in not removing the application from the list on 23 July 2012 was realised and the plaintiff was released. She spent approximately 15 hours and 22 minutes in custody.

[4] The plaintiff has issued these proceedings, pleading causes of action in false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, negligence and systemic negligence, and alleging arbitrary arrest and detention contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). She seeks a declaration that she was unlawfully arrested and detained, and $50,000 in damages.

[5] The essential facts are not in dispute. It is common ground that when the order was made cancelling the community work sentence, the scheduled listing for the application to review sentence on 23 July 2012 should have been cancelled. The administrative…

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 [2014] NZHC 2333
Case: [2014] NZHC 2333
Decision Date: 24 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Camille Iriana Thompson sued the Attorney-General for damages and a declaration that her arrest and detention were unlawful. The defendant answered that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Crown Proceedings Act 1950. The plaintiff alleged that she was unlawfully arrested and detained after the District Court failed to cancel a hearing that had been disposed of. The plaintiff alleged causes of action for false imprisonment, breach of statutory duty, negligence, systemic negligence, and arbitrary arrest and detention contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by s 6 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950. MacKenzie J found that the plaintiff's claims were barred by s 6(5) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, which prevents proceedings against the Crown for anything done or omitted to be done by any person while discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibilities of a judicial nature or any responsibilities in connection with the execution of judicial process. The Judge found that the failure to update the case management system was part of the judicial process and barred by s 6(5). The Judge also found that the plaintiff's claims for breach of statutory duty and negligence failed because the statutory duty to maintain court records was not imposed for the protection of a limited class of the public and the duty of care in negligence did not arise. The Judge found that the fourth and fifth causes of action also failed. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the defendant.

Orders