IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2015-404-2800
[2021] NZHC 18
BETWEEN
NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT
Plaintiff
AND
ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued in respect of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE
First Defendant
AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Second Defendant
Hearing:
22 October 2020 and 17 November 2020
Appearances:
On 22 Octoberr 2020:
Plaintiff in person Brittany Rorrison for the First Defendant Hershla Ifwersen for the Second Defendant (to observe)
On 17 November 2020: Plaintiff in person Brittany Rorrison for the First Defendant (to observe)
Daniel McLellan QC and Hershla Ifwersen for the Second Defendant
Judgment:
26 January 2021
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL (No.3)
This judgment was delivered by me on 26 January 2021 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Solicitors:
………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Meredith Connell, Auckland, for the First and Second Defendant
Copy for:
Nicholas David Wright, Auckland
Daniel McLellan QC, Auckland, for the Second Defendant
WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL sued in respect of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 18
[26 January 2021]
[1] This decision is about interrogatories. On 22 October 2020 I heard argument about Mr Wright’s interrogatories to the police and their answers. On 17 November 2020 I heard argument about his interrogatories to the District Health Board and its answers. This decision is given for both matters.
[2] Mr Wright is suing the Attorney-General in respect of the police for his arrest on 22 November 2009 and for a later arrest on 25 March 2012. For convenience I will refer to the first defendant as the police. He is suing the Auckland District Health Board for his compulsory detention and treatment as a patient under Part 1 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. His claims are for breaches of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He does not sue in tort.
[3] The close of pleadings date is 21 May 2021 with a substantive hearing to begin on 4 October 2021. Mr Wright says that he wants to amend his statement of claim. Ideally there ought not to be any more interlocutory applications.
[4] In Mr Wright’s view there were and are systemic defects in the police and mental health services with regard to rights observance. He sees this proceeding as an opportunity to expose those failings. He wants to involve the Ministry of Health, although it was not involved in his treatment by the district health board. His proposed interrogatories are extensive and cover not only his arrests and compulsory treatment but also current practices and procedures. He misconceives how the common law works. It does not act as a wide-ranging commission of inquiry. Instead in a case about breaches of rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it decides whether in the circumstances before the court the state breached the plaintiff’s rights and gives remedies appropriate to the breach. Its inquiry and orders do not go beyond the…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wright v Attorney-General [2021] NZHC 18
Case
[2021] NZHC 18
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This decision concerns interrogatories in a case brought by Nicholas David Wright against the Attorney-General in respect of the New Zealand Police and the Auckland District Health Board. The proceeding is about alleged breaches of Mr Wright’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The issues before the court were whether Mr Wright’s interrogatories were properly drafted and, if not, which of them were necessary and relevant and should be answered. The court ruled that many of Mr Wright’s interrogatories were not properly drafted, either because they were not factual questions or because they went beyond the proper scope of the proceeding. Some of the defendants’ objections to answering interrogatories were unsound. The court required the defendants to answer some more interrogatories. The court also ordered Mr Wright to amend his statement of claim to better plead how particular rights were infringed and ordered the defendants to file statements of defence to the new statement of claim. The defendants were to file affidavits to answer some interrogatories. The court reserved leave to apply for further directions.