Wright v Darvill - [2015] NZHC 1821

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3289 [2015] NZHC 1821

BETWEEN
NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT

Plaintiff

AND

ANTHONY DARVILL AND YILIANG SUN

First Defendants

AND

THE INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY Second Defendant

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Third Defendant

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF NEW ZEALAND

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 23 July 2015

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
No appearance for First Defendants
N M H Whittington & O M Klaassen for Second & Third
Defendants
No appearance for Fourth Defendant

Judgment:

4 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF KEANE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 August 2014 at 10am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

WRIGHT v DARVILL & ORS [2015] NZHC 1821 [4 August 2015]

[1] On 29 October 2009, in the early evening, Nicholas Wright, then a practising lawyer, was arrested in his home by Constables Darvill and Sun for assault and resisting arrest. The following day he was charged with assaulting an officer in the execution of his duty, a charge later withdrawn, and admitted to a mental health institution for the ensuing two weeks.

[2] On 1 December 2013 Mr Wright lodged with the Independent Police Conduct Authority a complaint against the two officers. On 3 December 2013 the Authority wrote to Mr Wright stating that it had decided not to assess his complaint itself but rather to refer his complaint to the New Zealand Police, with whom he might be able to reach an agreement. Mr Wright contends that since then the police have not determined his claim on its actual merit.

[3] The Authority has also since advised Mr Wright that it is exempt from having to tell him what its reasons were, and Mr Wright contends that he is entitled to those reasons. His case is that by declining to investigate his complaint itself and by immediately referring it to the New Zealand Police, the Authority failed to adhere to its statutory process, it showed presumptive bias and it acted in breach of his legitimate expectation.

[4] On this application for review, on which Mr Wright embarked on 16

December 2014, he seeks declarations that:

(a) The two officers acted unlawfully by entering his home, by refusing to leave, and by arresting and restraining him.

(b)The New Zealand Police acted unlawfully by refusing him his right to make a recorded statement, by holding him without charge for eight hours and by refusing since to review the legality of his arrest.

(c) The Authority acted unlawfully by refusing to disclose to him its reasons deciding not to investigate his complaint itself.

Mr Wright seeks two consequent orders; one quashing the Authority’s decision and

the other upholding his complaint.

[5] The two officers, in their statements of defence, contest the first declaration Mr Wright seeks. They say that they entered his home in good faith to counter any risk that he might assault his children, or they entered because his…

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 Darvill

Details

AGLC: Wright v Darvill [2015] NZHC 1821
Case: [2015] NZHC 1821
Decision Date: 4 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wright v Darvill, Nicholas Wright, a former lawyer, sought judicial review of decisions made by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) and the New Zealand Police in relation to a complaint he made about his arrest. The IPCA had declined to investigate his complaint and instead referred it to the New Zealand Police. Wright sought declarations that the officers involved in his arrest acted unlawfully, that the police had unlawfully refused him the right to make a recorded statement, and that the IPCA unlawfully declined to disclose its reasons for not investigating his complaint. The New Zealand Police, the IPCA, and the Attorney-General contested Wright’s claims. The primary issues before the court were whether Wright could seek a declaration against the Crown, whether he was entitled to discovery of certain records, and whether the defendants were entitled to security for costs and a stay if Wright were unable to pay. The court held that the Attorney-General was the proper defendant on behalf of the Crown, that Wright was entitled to specific discovery from the IPCA, and declined to grant security for costs and a stay. The court ordered that the fourth defendant be struck out, granted Wright discovery against the Attorney-General and specific discovery against the IPCA, and denied the applications for security for costs and a stay. The court further directed Wright to file a memorandum regarding costs by a specified date.

Orders