Wright v Attorney-General - [2021] NZHC 2695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-2800

[2021] NZHC 2695

IN THE MATTER OF public tort and judicial review proceedings relating to breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff/Applicant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

First Defendant/First Respondent

THE AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Second Defendant/Second Respondent

Hearing:
29 September 2021

Further written submissions filed 30 September 2021

Counsel:

Plaintiff/applicant in person

W R Potter for first defendant/first respondent
A M Adams for second defendant/second respondent (abiding)

Judgment:

1 October 2021

Reasons:

8 October 2021

REASONS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 October 2021 at 3pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for defendants/respondents

Copy to:
The plaintiff/applicant

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2695 [8 October 2021]

Introduction

[1] This proceeding for damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the NZBORA) and other relief is set down for a three-week trial before Campbell J, beginning on 11 October 2021. The plaintiff Mr N D Wright, who has legal qualifications, is representing himself.

[2] Mr Wright was required to serve his statements of evidence by 28 June 2021. He proposed to call evidence from six witnesses whose briefs of evidence he had not served and whom, it seemed, he would need to subpoena. On 29 September 2021, I heard oral argument on an application by Mr Wright for leave, under r 9.7(6) of the High Court Rules 2016, to call the evidence of the Solicitor-General (Una Jagose QC) and the Attorney-General (the Hon David Parker) without providing a brief. I had previously received written submissions from Mr Wright and counsel for the Attorney- General. The application for leave in respect of the other witnesses was adjourned to be addressed by the trial judge.

[3] On 1 October 2021, I delivered a result judgment in which I dismissed Mr Wright’s application to call the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General and said I would deliver my reasons in writing as soon as possible. These are my reasons.

Factual background

The first arrest

[4] After a confrontation with Police who had been called to his Auckland home on 22 November 2009 by his mother, Mr Wright was arrested (the first arrest). He was taken into custody in handcuffs and, after being held for several hours, was then detained by employees of the Auckland District Health Board (the ADHB) under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 (the MHCAT Act). Mr Wright was later charged with assaulting a Police officer in the execution of his duty and resisting arrest. After nearly two years of what Mr Wright alleges was deliberate delay by the Police, on the day before the scheduled hearing of the charges in September 2011, the Police said they would offer no evidence and the charges were dismissed for want of prosecution.

The second arrest

[5] Early…

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 Wright v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Wright v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 2695
Case: [2021] NZHC 2695
Decision Date: 1 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr. Nicholas David Wright, who is self-represented, has brought a proceeding against the Attorney-General and the Auckland District Health Board for damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and other relief. The proceeding concerns two arrests and Mr. Wright's detention under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The matter is set down for a three-week trial before Campbell J, beginning on 11 October 2021. Mr. Wright applied for leave under r 9.7(6) of the High Court Rules 2016 to call the evidence of the Solicitor-General (Una Jagose QC) and the Attorney-General (the Hon David Parker) without providing a brief. The application was heard on 29 September 2021, and the result was delivered orally on 1 October 2021. These are the reasons for judgment. The court dismissed the application on the ground that the evidence that Mr. Wright proposed should be given by either the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General was not necessary for the fair disposition of the proceeding. The court was satisfied that most, if not all, of the evidence that might be covered by Mr. Wright's request was, or would involve disclosure of, privileged communications which the Attorney-General was not required to disclose in the proceeding. The information either amounted to communications protected under s 54 of the Evidence Act as confidential communications related to obtaining professional legal services, or under s 56 of the Evidence Act being communications or information "made, received, compiled, or prepared for the dominant purpose of preparing for a proceeding or an apprehended proceeding", otherwise known as litigation privilege. Summoning the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to question them about such matters would serve no purpose. It may be assumed that privilege would not be waived. It follows that any evidence of either the Attorney-General's or the Solicitor-General's personal knowledge of the matters at issue would have no probative value in the proceeding. The court further found that Mr. Wright had not demonstrated that he had made any attempt to set out the steps taken to obtain a brief from either of the intended witnesses, or identify exceptional circumstances justifying the raising of this issue so close to trial.

Orders