Yorston v Attorney-General - [2025] NZHC 38

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-164

[2025] NZHC 38

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 27 and the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of a Judicial Review of a decision to refuse to correct a false conviction History Report and a false Criminal and Traffic History Record

BETWEEN

ALLAN MAGNUS YORSTON

Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Defendant

Hearing: 18 July, 13 September and 14 November 2024

Counsel:

Mr Yorston in Person

R E R Gavey for Defendant

Judgment:

31 January 2025

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

[1] In this judicial review proceeding, Mr Yorston claims that entries in his convictions history report—produced by the Ministry of Justice—are wrong. He seeks an order that they be corrected.

[2] In fact, there were errors in the dates of Mr Yorston’s convictions in that report. In the course of this proceeding, they have been identified and fixed.

YORSTON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2025] NZHC 38 [31 January 2025]

[3] However, Mr Yorston does not see that as concluding his claim. He believes that the conviction dates—recorded in earlier versions of the convictions history report—to have been altered deliberately by one or more Ministry of Justice employees. He does not see the issues as having been resolved.

[4] For the reasons I go on to give, I am satisfied that the issues with the convictions history report have been remedied such that the proceeding is resolved. A sound practical outcome has resulted. In any event, underlying that practical outcome, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider Mr Yorston’s claim.

The allegations and the issues

The nub of the case

[5] The Ministry of Justice1 produces a document known as a convictions history report upon request. The report is a computer-generated compilation of information about an individual’s convictions and the sentences imposed. It is created from information recorded in the case management system used by the courts at the time a request is made. The report contains seven columns:

(a)the CRI number for a particular proceeding;

(b)the court in which a conviction was entered;

(c)the court record number (CRN);2

(d)the conviction date;

(e)a description of the charge for which a conviction was entered;

(f)the sentence date;

(g)a sentence description.

1 On whose behalf the Attorney-General is named as defendant.
2 A CRN is a unique number assigned to a singular charge laid by a prosecutor.

[6] In November 2023, Mr Yorston requested his convictions history report from the Ministry. The report that was produced showed, for each of the convictions it covered, the conviction and sentence dates to be the same. In fact, in each case, the dates on which Mr Yorston’s convictions were entered were earlier than the dates on which sentences were imposed for those convictions.3

[7] The Ministry accepts that the dates of Mr Yorston’s convictions were not the same as the dates on which he was sentenced and that, therefore, the report produced is inaccurate. 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Yorston v Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 38
Decision Date: 31 January 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Allan Magnus Yorston, a plaintiff, initiated a judicial review against the Attorney-General, challenging the refusal to correct errors in his convictions history report and criminal and traffic history record, both produced by the Ministry of Justice. The Ministry acknowledged that software issues had conflated conviction dates with sentence dates in the reports, resulting in inaccuracies. The plaintiff alleged malicious falsification of these records for misleading purposes and sought corrections and disclosures. The court identified two primary issues: whether the errors in the convictions history report had been resolved and whether the court had jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims under judicial review.

The court found that the software issues causing the inaccuracies had been identified and remedied by the Ministry, which had provided the plaintiff with an amended report. Despite the practical resolution of the errors, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims. The generation of convictions history reports by the Ministry was an administrative, mechanical process without statutory decision-making or public power involved. Consequently, the court did not have jurisdiction to review these administrative actions. The court also noted that the Privacy Act did not confer enforceable rights in court regarding the correction of information. Therefore, the court declined the plaintiff's application for judicial review and dismissed his claims. The Ministry, as the defendant, successfully defended the proceeding and would be entitled to its costs if sought.

Orders