Wedgwood v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000079

[2020] NZHC 278

BETWEEN ASTON EDWARD WILLIAM ERNEST WEDGWOOD
Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing: Determined on the papers

Representation:

A E W E Wedgwood (Applicant) in person

Judgment:

26 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 February 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WEDGWOOD v R [2020] NZHC 278 [26 February 2020]

Introduction

[1] Aston Edward William Ernest Wedgwood has tendered for filing a form of application and a supporting affidavit.

[2]The application is expressly entitled:

Interlocutory emergency application for ordering the Crown to give medically endorsed prescriptions of medical necessaries of life – palliative per absolute duties under International Convention on Political and Civil Rights and Disability Convention WITHOUT NOTICE.

The previous documents

[3] Mr Wedgwood had a week earlier tendered for filing a document with a similar heading, but naming as respondent “Et al Megan Woods”.

(“the previous documents).

[4] The Registrar referred the previous documents to Wylie J pursuant to r 5.35A High Court Rules.

[5] Wylie J considered the previous documents by reference to r 5.35B and the inherent jurisdiction and struck out the matter. The Court’s Minute of 17 February 2020 appears as Schedule A to this judgment.

Documents now filed

[6] The documents filed by Mr Wedgwood are defective in form and objectionable in substance.

[7] In form the application is filed as if it is an interlocutory application, yet there is no substantive proceeding before the Court. The only document seeking relief is that in which the heading begins “interlocutory emergency application” which appears intended to be treated as an application (without notice) for an interim mandatory injunction (for instance, “ordering the Crown to give medically endorsed prescriptions
…”).

[8] As a result, there is nothing in the form of application filed which identifies the legal cause or causes of action relied upon. It is accordingly unclear whether Mr Wedgwood is intending to sue the Crown for breach of a duty owed to him (whether it common law or otherwise) or is intending to make an application for judicial review. In the latter case the person or persons whose act or omission is the intended subject matter of the application would need to be named as respondents.

[9] Against that background I have reviewed the 86 paragraph affidavit filed by Mr Wedgwood, together with the 26 exhibits. The affidavit is so discursive as to be incapable of comprehension. There are repeated references to assaults or wrongs committed by unnamed persons, Government failures which have resulted in “torturous injuries, rapes, grievous internal assaults and permanent severe injury”, ACC never having heeded medical evidence; and “acts of injudicious disregard evidence by Government frequently constantly results in terms of UN conventions, torture claims”. These are merely instances of many such generalised, unspecific allegations.

[10] In Mathiesen v Fildes, I adopted…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wedgwood v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NZHC 278
Decision Date: 26 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aston Edward William Ernest Wedgwood applied to the High Court of New Zealand for an interlocutory emergency application seeking the Crown to provide him with medically endorsed prescriptions of medical necessities of life, citing obligations under international conventions. The application was filed without notice and was considered defective in form and objectionable in substance, lacking clarity on the legal causes of action relied upon. The court had to determine whether the application should be struck out due to its form and content.

The legal issues involved whether the application was appropriately filed and whether it would be manifestly unfair to the Crown to require a response. The court applied the two-pronged test from Mathiesen v Fildes to assess if the proceeding was an abuse of process. The application failed on both counts, as it was unclear and did not identify specific respondents or legal causes of action. The court found that it would be manifestly unfair to the Crown to require a response and that right-thinking people would view the court's allowance of such documents as poor control of its processes.

The High Court, therefore, ordered that the proceeding be struck out. The applicant had the right to appeal this decision. The court also noted that the applicant had chosen to have any documents served at the High Court Registrar's Counter, which was permissible under the High Court Rules. This judgment was delivered on 26 February 2020 and was effective upon placement on the Registrar's Counter.

Orders