Tranter v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections

[2019] NZHC 921

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-156

[2019] NZHC 921

BETWEEN

DAVID TRANTER

Applicant

AND

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

First Respondent

THE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Second Respondent

On the papers:
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	30 April 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]    On 14 March 2019, Mr Tranter filed in the High Court at Wellington a document headed “Submission for  Judicial  Review”.  That  document  expressed Mr Tranter’s concerns that the Department of Corrections had, in the past, used a device called a “Plinth Machine” and that the results from this machine had, in the past, been incorporated into reports submitted to the Courts in relation to prisoners such as himself.

[2]    The Registrar referred the proceedings to me pursuant to High Court Rule 5.35A on the basis that, because they did not set out an identifiable legal cause of action they, on their face, are an abuse of the process of Court.

TRANTER v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & ANOR [2019] NZHC 921 [30 April 2019]

[3]    On 28 March 2019, I issued a minute making the following orders under HCR 5.35B:

(a)these proceedings be stayed until further order of the Court;

(b)the documents filed by the applicant not be served but be kept by the Court until the stay is lifted; and

(c)if the applicant wishes to continue with these proceedings, an amended statement of claim is to be filed within 21 days which identifies the specific statutory power decision which is said to have been exercised and seeks relief of the type available in an application for judicial review.

[4]    The applicant subsequently filed by email what was said to be a response to the minute. However, this document was not in the form of an amended statement of claim specifying the particular decisions said to be unlawful and neither did it seek relief of the type available in proceedings for judicial review.

[5]    The second respondent was still identified as “The Psychology Department, Department of Corrections” notwithstanding the Court, in the minute of 28 March 2019, indicating that a party to a proceeding must be a legal entity and that The Psychology Department had no different legal personality to the Department of Corrections.

[6]    Given that the applicant has been unwilling or unable to file an amended statement of claim identifying a specific decision which he seeks judicial review of and setting out relief of the type available to the Court in judicial review proceedings, I am satisfied that these proceedings are plainly an abuse of the process of the Court.

[7]Accordingly, pursuant to HCR 5.35B(2)(a), I strike these proceedings out.

[8]    I direct that a copy of this decision be served on the Department of Corrections. I also advise the applicant of his right to appeal this decision.

Churchman J

cc:        The Applicant

Department of Corrections, Wellington