Mitchell v Attorney-General

Case [2017] NZHC 1320


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2015-485-771 [2017] NZHC 1320

UNDER the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

IN THE MATTER

of a claim for damages

BETWEEN

KERRYN MITCHELL Plaintiff

AND

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Defendant

On the papers

Counsel:

K Mitchell in Person
D Harris for Defendant

Judgment:

15 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

[1]      By her amended statement of claim dated 16 August 2016, the plaintiff, Kerryn Mitchell, brings claims against the defendant under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[2]      The claims concern the actions of the Prison Manager at Arohata Prison who withheld  correspondence  written  by  Ms  Mitchell,  when  she  was  remanded  in custody  at  the  Prison.    The  correspondence  was  addressed  to Arthur  Taylor,  a prisoner at Auckland Prison.  Ms Mitchell seeks relief in the form of a declaration, compensatory and exemplary damages, and any other relief the Court may consider just.  Ms Mitchell is self-represented.

[3]      The defendant accepts that in this case letters written by Ms Mitchell, dated

28 March and 22 April 2013 respectively, were withheld unreasonably in breach of s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which provides:

MITCHELL v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 1320 [15 June 2017]

14       Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

[4]      The defendant is agreeable to the making of a declaration to that effect.

[5]      The defendant has also agreed to pay public law compensation in respect of the breach of s 14. This amount will be subject to the provisions of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005.

Orders

[6]      By consent, judgment is given for the plaintiff on the following terms:

[7]      A declaration that Ms Mitchell’s letters dated 28 March and 22 April

2013 respectively were withheld unreasonably in breach of s 14 of the

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[8]      An order that the defendant is to pay public law compensation of

$1500 in respect of the breach, the amount being payable to the Secretary  for  Justice  to  be  dealt  with  in  accordance  with  the provisions of s 17(1) of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005.

[9]      No order as to costs is sought.

[10]     The proceeding in respect of the balance of the claim is to be treated as discontinued forthwith.

Thomas J

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington

Details
AGLC
Mitchell v Attorney-General [2017] NZHC 1320
Case
[2017] NZHC 1320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, dealt with the claim of Kerryn Mitchell against the Attorney-General. Mitchell, represented by herself, argued that the defendant had unreasonably withheld correspondence she wrote while remanded in custody at Arohata Prison, which was addressed to another prisoner, Arthur Taylor, at Auckland Prison. The withheld letters were dated 28 March and 22 April 2013. Mitchell sought a declaration, compensatory and exemplary damages, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the actions of the Prison Manager in withholding Mitchell's letters constituted an unreasonable breach of her right to freedom of expression under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Section 14 guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions. The court also needed to determine the appropriate form of compensation for the breach.

The court found that the defendant accepted the breach of Mitchell's right to freedom of expression and agreed to the making of a declaration to that effect. The defendant also agreed to pay public law compensation, the amount of which would be determined under the provisions of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005. By consent, the court issued a declaration that the letters were withheld unreasonably and ordered the defendant to pay public law compensation of $1500. The balance of the claim was discontinued.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.