Yorston v Attorney-General - [2024] NZHC 2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-164

[2024] NZHC 2005

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 2024

Counsel:

Mr Yorston in person

R E R Gavey for Defendant

Judgment:

19 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF RADICH J

(Interlocutory application for injunction)

[1] In the substantive proceeding, Mr Yorston seeks orders, by way of judicial review, for corrections to be made to his criminal record on the basis of alleged errors in his convictions history report.

[2] On 20 May 2024, Mr Yorston sought, on a without notice basis, an order that was described in the application as “Interlocutory Injunction in the Wellington District Court matter CIV-2023-085-000443”. The District Court proceeding to which the

YORSTON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2024] NZHC 2005 [19 July 2024]

application relates is an appeal of a decision relating to a firearms licence for Ms Taylor, Mr Yorston’s support person during this hearing.

[3] The substantive judicial review proceeding was heard yesterday. The injunction application was addressed during the course of it. For reasons given in a minute that is issued today alongside this judgment, the hearing of the substantive judicial review proceeding has been adjourned part-heard. But I said to the parties during the course of the hearing that I would not be granting the interim injunction sought. These are my reasons for that decision.

[4] The overriding point is that there is no appropriate basis upon which this Court could intervene in a proceeding between different parties in the District Court. The parties in the District Court are Mr Yorston’s partner as appellant and New Zealand Police as respondent. The appeal relates to a decision refusing to issue a firearms licence to Mr Yorston’s partner.

[5] Mr Yorston’s application is essentially an application to stay the District Court appeal. An application of that sort would need to be made to the District Court under r 15.1(3) of the District Court Rules 2014. It is an application that would need to be made by Mr Yorston’s partner herself.

[6] In addition, it is a matter on which the police would need to be heard. But, in any event, there is nothing in terms of the possible findings that could be made in this case that could be relevant to the District Court’s decision on the firearms appeal. While Mr Yorston has indicated, during the judicial review proceeding yesterday, that issue is taken with evidence given by Inspector Pullen in his affidavit of 11 September 2023 in the District Court appeal, this Court has no ability to intervene in that evidence. It is evidence in which the inspector refers to a certain number of convictions on Mr Yorston’s…

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: [2024] NZHC 2005
Decision Date: 19 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, Mr Allan Magnus Yorston filed an application for judicial review against the Attorney-General, seeking corrections to his criminal record on the grounds of alleged errors in his convictions history report. This case was heard on 18 July 2024, with Mr Yorston representing himself and R E R Gavey appearing for the defendant. The substantive judicial review proceeding was part-heard before being adjourned, but the court addressed the plaintiff's interlocutory application for an injunction during this hearing. The court was required to decide whether to grant an interlocutory injunction to stay a separate firearms licence appeal in the Wellington District Court, which involved Mr Yorston's partner and the New Zealand Police.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether it could intervene in the District Court proceeding and whether it could grant an interlocutory injunction to stay the firearms licence appeal. The court found that it did not have the authority to intervene in a proceeding between different parties in the District Court. Moreover, the application to stay the District Court appeal should have been made by Mr Yorston's partner, not him. Additionally, the police needed to be heard on the matter. The court also noted that there was no basis for it to intervene in the evidence presented in the District Court appeal, as it pertained to Mr Yorston's drug-related convictions. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no serious issue to be tried, the balance of inconvenience favoured the Attorney-General, and the overall interests of justice did not support granting the injunction.

The court declined Mr Yorston's application for an injunction, stating that it was clear there was no serious issue to be tried and that the balance of inconvenience and the overall interests of justice did not support the grant of the injunction. The court noted that costs were not sought at that stage, but they could be addressed during the conclusion of the substantive judicial review proceeding. The court's decision was based on the lack of appropriate authority to intervene in the District Court proceeding and the procedural errors in the application, rather than the merits of Mr Yorston's claims regarding his criminal record.

Orders