Wright v Bhosale

[2015] NZHC 3367

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-004936 [2015] NZHC 3367

BETWEEN

NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

VIJAYRAJ BHOSALE First Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Second Defendant

Hearing:	15 to 19 June and 21 July 2015
Counsel:	N D Wright Plaintiff in person T A Simmonds for First Defendant N Whittington and B Thompson for Second Defendant
Judgment:	21 December 2015

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 December 2015 at 7.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:

Todd A Simmonds, Barrister, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Auckland

And to:

N D Wright

WRIGHT v BHOSALE & ANOR [2015] NZHC 3367 [21 December 2015]

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................................[1] Background...........................................................................................................[5] Disputed facts .....................................................................................................[24] Pleadings .............................................................................................................[30] Judgment structure ............................................................................................[34] Assault and battery ............................................................................................[35] Wrongful arrest ..................................................................................................[40]

False imprisonment/Breach of ss 18 and 22 BORA .......................................[50]

Unreasonable search/Breach of s 21 BORA ...................................................[56]

Section 23(2) BORA – the decision to charge Mr Wright ...............................[62]

Failure to disclose information regarding basis of

charge/Breach of s 24(a) BORA ........................................................................[75]

General damages ......................................................................................................

Submissions ....................................................................................................[90]

Relevant law as to damages in tort and under BORA ...................................[99] Relevant case law .........................................................................................[107] Assessment of general damages in this case ................................................ [116]

Exemplary damages

Submissions ..................................................................................................[134]

Relevant law..................................................................................................[142]
Discussion.....................................................................................................[145]

Conclusion.........................................................................................................[158]

Introduction

[1]      Mr Wright, who some years ago was a partner in an Auckland law firm but who has fallen on hard times, was a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle when he was asked by the police to provide identification.  Knowing the police had no lawful right, Mr Wright refused.  He did so in an odd and confrontational manner.  He was handcuffed and subjected to a pat-down search on the footpath on Karangahape Road; taken to the Auckland Central Police Station; charged and locked in a cell for two and a half hours.   Some four months later, the police conceded there was no lawful basis for the charge and it was dismissed.

[2]      Mr Wright seeks declarations and damages against Constable Bhosale and the Crown, for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“BORA”), assault and battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment.

[3]      The defendants have acted fairly throughout the proceeding.   They readily accepted in their first statement of defence in December 2013 that Mr Wright was wrongfully arrested and imprisoned during the events that are the subject of this proceeding.   The parties attempted to settle in early 2015 but could not reach an agreement.

[4]      As there is no dispute that the defendants have committed the torts of battery, wrongful arrest and false imprisonment, the main issues for determination in this proceeding  are  whether  BORA rights  have  been  breached  and  the  quantum  of damages that should be awarded to Mr Wright, including in particular whether he should receive exemplary damages.

Background

[5]      In the early morning of 3 May 2013, Constable Bhosale and Constable Bunce were patrolling in a…