Whichman v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 1329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002554

[2025] NZHC 1329

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

GEORGE WHICHMAN

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Defendant

Hearing: 6 March 2025

Appearances:

George Whichman in person

K D Grant and D M Karl for the Attorney-General

Judgment:

26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARVEY J

This judgment is delivered by me on 26 May 2025 at 3,00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………………
Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

And to:
The Appellant

WHICHMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 1329 [26 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] George Whichman regularly attends the Manukau District Court, where he is required by Police to remove any clothing items with cords in accordance with the Police’s “Cords Policy”. This includes, for example, shoelaces, watches, jewellery, hair ties, belts and drawstrings. Mr Whichman seeks to review the Cords Policy on the grounds that it is unlawful, unreasonable or both.1 He alleged the policy is discriminatory because it is only applied at the Manukau District Court, that it breaches relevant policy and legislative frameworks, and that it is enforced by the Police through intimidation, threats and actual violence. He also asserted that the policy infringes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), the Crimes Act 1961 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).

[2] The Attorney-General opposes Mr Whichman’s application and submitted that the policy is both lawful and reasonable. She contended the policy does not infringe the NZBORA or, in the alternative, is a justified limitation under s 5.

[3] Following the hearing, and in response to my direction during the hearing, counsel for the Attorney-General filed a memorandum dated 16 April 2025 identifying which parts of Mr Whichman’s evidence were considered inadmissible. Mr Whichman filed an additional affidavit dated 24 April 2025 and a letter dated 5 May 2025 in support of his application. The Attorney-General then filed a further memorandum in response on 23 May 2025. These documents are considered at the end of this judgment.

The scope of the application

[4] Despite the finding of Blanchard J in his minute of 6 November 2024, there appeared to be an ongoing dispute about the scope of this application. Mr Whichman sought to discuss individual instances in which he alleged the policy had been applied with unreasonable and unlawful force. He referred to an incident on 5 June 2024 when he refused to comply with the Cords Policy. He was restrained, his shoes were removed and the drawstring to his pants was cut. On the other hand, the

1 Whichman v The New Zealand Police HC Auckland CIV-2024-404-2554, 6 November 2024 (Minute of Blanchard J) at [5].

Attorney-General sought to solely discuss the policy itself rather than particular instances where it had been enforced or applied. I will outline the parties’ submissions on…

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 Whichman v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Whichman v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC 1329
Case: [2025] NZHC 1329
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Whichman v Attorney-General, the High Court of New Zealand considered George Whichman’s application to judicially review the New Zealand Police's "Cords Policy", which mandates the removal of clothing items with cords at the Manukau District Court. The policy is intended to mitigate the risk of self-harm or harm to others by removing items like shoelaces, belts, and drawstrings from detainees. Mr Whichman argued the policy is unlawful and unreasonable, claiming it is discriminatory, breaches relevant policy and legislative frameworks, and infringes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA), the Crimes Act 1961, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA). The Attorney-General opposed the application, contending that the policy is lawful and reasonable. The Court held the scope of the application was limited to the Cords Policy itself, rather than its application or enforcement in particular instances. The Court found the Cords Policy is not unlawful as it does not breach the NZBORA, the Crimes Act or the HSWA. The Court also held the policy is not unreasonable, as it is supported by research highlighting the risk of suicide by hanging and self-strangulation within the prison population and the risks to remand prisoners in particular. Accordingly, Mr Whichman’s application for judicial review was declined.

Orders