Christopher Taunoa v The Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 6/2006
[2006] NZSC 30

BETWEENCHRISTOPHER HAPIMANA BEN MARK TAUNOA AND ORS

Appellants and Cross-Respondent

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR

Respondents

Court:Elias CJ, Blanchard and Tipping JJ
Counsel:T Ellis and D La Hood for Appellants and Cross-Respondent

T Arnold QC and B Keith for Respondents

Judgment:12 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A.Leave to appeal is granted on both applications.
B.The approved grounds are:
(1)Whether there were breaches of s 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment) in relation to the four appellants.
(2)Whether there were breaches of s 27 of that Act (denial of natural justice) in relation to those appellants.
(3)Whether the awards of compensation to the first, second and fourth appellants and the cross-respondent were appropriate as a remedy for breach of their rights and, if so, whether the quantum of each award was properly assessed. (The determination on this ground will have regard to the determinations on grounds 1 and 2 as well as to the breaches which have already been found.)

REASONS
[1]      Leave has not been granted on issues raised separately by counsel for the appellants concerning international conventions and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. These issues may be relevant to the establishment of the Bill of Rights breaches but do not give rise to separate claims.
[2]       The Crown pleading point concerning the “failure to investigate” argument will be considered, if necessary, at the hearing.
[3]       The Court will not hear any argument concerning the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 and the tribunal established thereunder since the enactment of that legislation post-dates the hearing in the Court of Appeal and the claims made in this proceeding were therefore not addressed to it.
Solicitors:
N B Dunning, Wellington for Appellants
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Christopher Taunoa and others against the Attorney-General and another was heard. The appellants, represented by T Ellis and D La Hood, challenged the Crown's position as represented by T Arnold QC and B Keith. The court, consisting of Elias CJ, Blanchard, and Tipping JJ, was tasked with determining whether there were breaches of sections 9 and 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, specifically whether there was cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment, and if there was a denial of natural justice. Additionally, the court was asked to consider whether the awards of compensation to certain appellants were appropriate and properly assessed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the treatment of the four appellants constituted breaches of their rights under section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act, and if there were any breaches of section 27 concerning natural justice. The court also examined the appropriateness and quantum of compensation awarded to the first, second, and fourth appellants and the cross-respondent. These issues were to be considered in light of the breaches already identified.

The court granted leave to appeal on both applications and approved specific grounds for the appeal. These grounds included the alleged breaches of sections 9 and 27 of the Bill of Rights Act, as well as the appropriateness and assessment of compensation. The court noted that other issues raised, such as international conventions and the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, were not to be considered separately as they did not give rise to independent claims. The Crown's argument concerning the "failure to investigate" would be addressed if necessary during the hearing. The court also declined to consider arguments related to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 as the claims in this proceeding were not directed at that legislation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established