Williams v Police - [2021] NZHC 2345

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2020-485-420

[2021] NZHC 2345

UNDER the Privacy Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

a Decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Striking Out a Statement of Claim

BETWEEN

JAMES LEONARD WILLIAMS

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent

Hearing: On the Papers

Counsel:

N Levy QC for Appellant

M McKillop for Respondent

Judgment:

8 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Application for leave to appeal]

Introduction

[1] The respondent seeks leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal.1

[2]It says the Court erred in two respects:

1 Williams v New Zealand Police [2021] NZHC 808. The respondent submits, and I agree, that it is not necessary for the High Court to sit with additional members for the purpose of determining an application for leave to appeal under s 126 of the Human Rights Act 1993. Additional members of the Court are only required when the High Court is exercising its powers under ss 92T and 123, and not, therefore, for this leave application.

WILLIAMS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2345 [8 September 2021]

(a)It wrongly interpreted the scope of the Tribunal’s summary jurisdiction, which (properly construed) confers a broad jurisdiction to determine proceedings (whether by strike-out or by summary judgment); and

(b)It wrongly interpreted s 48 of the Official Information Act 1982 (the OIA) by:

(i)conflating the defendant’s pleading onus with an evidentiary onus; and

(ii)requiring a defendant to prove a good faith state of mind, when that ought to be presumed from the existence of an official information request and response.

[3] The appellant submits neither question raised by the respondent is seriously arguable. Further, if these legal arguments were successful, the Court’s factual findings would be determinative in any event. Nor do these questions raise issues of general or public importance that would outweigh the appellant’s interest in these already protracted proceedings being finally determined by the Tribunal according to their merits.

[4]I have concluded that leave should be granted for the reasons that follow.

Background

[5] The relevant factual background is set out in the judgment at [4]–[30]. What follows is a summary.

[6] Mr Williams’ personal information was disclosed in 2009 when his former partner sought a protection order and her solicitor sent an OIA request to Paeroa Police for all information held concerning Mr Williams and herself. A Sergeant Caldwell replied, attaching Mr Williams’ complete criminal and traffic history. The personal information disclosed went well beyond the scope of the request made to Police.

[7] Mr Williams was unaware of this disclosure until 2014. In August of that year he received documents from his former partner relating to Family Court proceedings. Those papers included a copy of Mr Williams’ complete criminal and traffic history.

[8] Mr Williams made a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner. The letter in response recorded that Police had advised the Commissioner that while they had accessed Mr Williams’ criminal…

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 Williams v Police

Details

AGLC: Williams v Police [2021] NZHC 2345
Case: [2021] NZHC 2345
Decision Date: 8 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, James Leonard Williams brought an appeal against the New Zealand Police, challenging the Human Rights Review Tribunal's decision to strike out his claim for breach of privacy under the Privacy Act 1993. The central issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the scope of its summary jurisdiction and the application of s 48 of the Official Information Act 1982. The Police sought leave to appeal the High Court's decision, arguing that the Court had wrongly interpreted the Tribunal's jurisdiction to grant summary judgments and had misapplied s 48 of the OIA by requiring a defendant to prove a good faith state of mind, instead of presuming it from the existence of an official information request and response. The Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the questions posed were ones of law capable of serious argument and of sufficient public importance to warrant further examination by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal must now decide whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to grant summary judgments and, if so, how this jurisdiction interacts with the statutory immunity under s 48 of the OIA. Specifically, the questions to be answered are whether the burden of establishing the elements of s 48 lies with the defendant and whether good faith should be presumed in every case where there has been an unlawful disclosure of information in response to an OIA request. The Court acknowledged the protracted nature of the proceedings but emphasised the importance of resolving these questions of law to ensure clarity in the Tribunal's jurisdiction and the proper application of statutory immunities.

Orders