IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2015-404-2800
[2019] NZHC 59
BETWEEN
NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT
Plaintiff
AND
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
First Defendant
AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD
Second Defendant
Hearing:
12, 13, 14 March and 9 April 2018
Appearances:
Plaintiff in person
Olivia Klaassen for the First Defendant Anna Adams and Hershla Ifwersen for the Second Defendant
Judgment:
5 February 2019
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL
This judgment was delivered by me on 5 February 2019 at 11:00am
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
…………………………………
Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland, for the Defendants
Copy for: N D Wright, Auckland, Plaintiff
WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 59 [5 February 2019]
CONTENTS
Paragraph No.
Mr Wright’s lack of resources [8]
Costs in New Zealand Bill of Rights cases [9]
Mr Wright’s claim against the District Health Board [12] Part 1 of the Mental Health (Compulstory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 [18] What happened in Mr Wright’s case [39]
Mr Wright’s other challenges to his detention [49]
Mr Wright’s procedural challenges to his detention [51]
Mr Wright’s substantive challenges [59]
State of mind of medical practitioner [60]
Mentally disordered [61]
The need for reasons [66] The information that certifiers take into account [71]
The reasonableness requirement [72]
The standard for review of a certifier’s opinion [73]
The opinions in this case [74]
The District Health Board’s post facto evidence [74]
The certificate under s 8B [78]
The certificate of preliminary assessment [80]
Can Mr Wright’s continued detention and treatment be legitimised by later assessments? [81]
Assessment of Mr Wright’s claim against the District Health Board [84]
Mr Wright’s cases against the Police [86]
Mr Wright’s other current proceeding [88]
The first arrest [89]
The second arrest [101]
The third arrest – Bhosale [106]
The fourth arrest [112]
Irresponsible litigant? [120]
The balancing question [125]
Security for the fourth arrest [129]
Other matters [131]
Outcome [135]
[1] The defendants, the Attorney-General (sued in respect of the Police) and the Auckland District Health Board, apply for the plaintiff, Mr Wright, to provide security for costs. Mr Wright is suing the police for breaching his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when they arrested him four times, on 22 November 2009, 25 March 2012, 1 May 2013 and 23 November 2013. He is suing the Auckland District Health Board for breaching his rights under that act for detaining him in November and December 2009 under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The defendants say that he does not have the means to pay any costs that may be ordered against him, his claims are without merit and he is litigating irresponsibly. While Mr Wright is entitled to access the court to have his case heard and decided, they argue that this should not be allowed to prevail over their interest in being protected from obtaining no more than a barren order for costs…
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 [2019] NZHC 59
Case
[2019] NZHC 59
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Nicholas David Wright sued the Attorney-General (in respect of the Police) and the Auckland District Health Board for breaches of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The defendants applied for security for costs on the ground that Mr Wright lacked the means to pay any costs that may be ordered against him if he was unsuccessful in his proceeding. The court considered whether Mr Wright had a triable case on the merits and whether his conduct of the case warranted barring his access to the court. The court found that Mr Wright's case against the district health board raised important questions about how health practitioners decide whether the mentally ill should be detained under Part 1 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. The court found that Mr Wright's case against the police was weaker, but still arguable. The court found that Mr Wright's conduct of the case had not been responsible, but that did not count against his case continuing to trial. The court found that the district health board's application for security for costs should be dismissed and that Mr Wright should provide security for costs for his claim against the police for the fourth arrest. The court extended the time for applying for review of this decision to 15 working days after delivery of the judgment.