Williamson v The Queen - [2020] NZHC 2561

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 130 OF THE INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY (COMPULSORY CARE AND REHABILITATION) ACT 2003, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B, 11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE

SEE https:// judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000254

[2020] NZHC 2561

BETWEEN
RAYMOND CHARLES WILLIAMSON

Appellant

AND

R

Respondent

Hearing: 16 September 2020

Counsel:

D R La Hood & N Azam (via VMR) for the Appellant A J Bailey for the Respondent / Counsel to Assist

Judgment:

30 September 2020

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 September 2020.

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Wellington Hansen Law, Wellington

Copy to:
Mr Bailey, Christchurch

WILLIAMSON v R [2020] NZHC 2561 [30 September 2020]

Introduction [1]

The background [9]

The Family Court decision  [19]
Did the care order expire on 6 or 7 February 2020?  [20]
Deferral of expiry of a care order after the order has expired, if an application
is pending  [25]
Did the Family Court have jurisdiction to retrospectively reinstate the care order
after its deferred expiry date had passed?  [28]

Matters subsequent to the Family Court decision [34]

The present appeal [38]

Issues on appeal [38]
Approach to appeal [39]

If an application for extension of a care order is filed before the care order expires, is the effect of s 87 to defer the expiry of the care order by operation of law until the application has been heard and determined by the Family Court?  [43]
Appellant’s submissions  [43]
Respondent’s submissions  [50]
The statutory framework of the IDCCRA – purpose  [55]
Provisions of the IDCCRA relating to care orders  [68]

The interrelationship between ss 85 and 87 of the IDCCRA  [73]
Interpretation of s 87 of the IDCCRA  [75]
The plain language of s 87  [75]
The language of s 87 in context  [83]

Did the Family Court in fact defer the expiry date of the care order under s 87, by issuing a notice of judicial conference and subsequent minutes?  [93]
Appellant’s submissions  [93]
Respondent’s submissions  [97]
Analysis  [98]

Did the Family Court have jurisdiction to reinstate the care order after it had expired?    [107]
Appellant’s submissions  [107]
Respondent’s submissions  [113]
The two possible interpretations of s 87 of the IDCCRA  [114]
Analysis  [115]

Did the care order issued by Judge McMeeken expire on 6 or 7 February 2020?

[127]
Respondent’s submissions [127]
Appellant’s submissions [131]

When did the care order commence? [134]

Was R unlawfully detained on 7 February 2017? [143]

Conclusion [147]

Result [157]

Introduction

[1] The respondent, R, is a young man aged 20. He was made a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (the IDCCRA) by Judge McMeeken on 7 February 2017, after he was found unfit to stand trial. He was found responsible for one…

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 Williamson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williamson v The Queen [2020] NZHC 2561
Case: [2020] NZHC 2561
Decision Date: 30 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Raymond Charles Williamson, the appellant and care coordinator, appealed against the decision of the Family Court, which had dismissed his application to extend the care order for R, a young man with intellectual disabilities who had been found unfit to stand trial. The appeal centred on the interpretation and application of section 87 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCRA). The Family Court had deferred the expiry of the care order until 7 May 2020 but ultimately found that it had no jurisdiction to defer or extend the care order once it had expired. The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that section 87 of the IDCCRA does not defer the expiry of a care order by operation of law until an application under section 85 has been heard and determined. The Court held that the Family Court must consider whether to exercise its discretion to order a deferral of the expiry date of a care order, and that any such order must be expressly articulated. The Court found that the notice of judicial conference and subsequent minutes did not constitute an order under section 87. The Court also held that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to defer the expiry of the care order in June 2020, after its expiry on 7 May 2020. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the Court ordered that R would continue to be detained pending the determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal.

Orders