Taylor v Department of Corrections

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 35/2009
[2009] NZSC 80

BETWEENARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR

Applicant

ANDTHE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Respondent

Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:C J Tennet for Applicant

V E Casey for Respondent

Judgment:24 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1]       The application relates to judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator under s 134 of the Corrections Act 2004 to refer a disciplinary charge to a Visiting Justice. The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s determination that the adjudicator’s decision was invalid.
[2]       The proposed appeal has no prospect of success. With the greatest of respect to the High Court Judge, we cannot see how a right to a hearing prior to an adjudicator’s decision to refer can be read into s 134. The adjudicator is not called upon to decide on guilt or penalty but merely to form an opinion on the apparent seriousness of the prisoner’s conduct and on the possible penalty if and when a breach of discipline is established after a hearing. Nothing in s 139 requires a different reading of s 134 so as to import the need for a hearing.
[3]       It was also perfectly proper for the adjudicator to take account of previous disciplinary breaches by the applicant. “Conduct” naturally is judged in part in light of such breaches when a penalty comes to be imposed by the Visiting Justice if guilt is proven. The argument for the appellant would, if accepted, lead to the absurd situation that a repetition of offending which in isolation would not justify reference to a Visiting Justice, and a higher penalty, might not be able to be referred under s 134. Yet, if there were a reference, the higher penalty might well be appropriate should there be a finding of guilt. That would be an unprincipled outcome.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Department of Corrections was heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Arthur William Taylor, sought judicial review of a decision made by an adjudicator under the Corrections Act 2004, which referred a disciplinary charge to a Visiting Justice. The applicant contested the validity of this decision and appealed to the High Court, which was overturned by the Court of Appeal. Taylor then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which was ultimately dismissed. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the adjudicator's decision to refer the disciplinary charge to a Visiting Justice was valid and if a hearing was required prior to such a referral. Additionally, the court examined whether the adjudicator's consideration of the applicant's previous disciplinary breaches was appropriate.

The Supreme Court held that there was no basis to read a right to a hearing into the relevant section of the Corrections Act. The adjudicator's role was limited to forming an opinion on the apparent seriousness of the prisoner’s conduct and the possible penalty, without deciding on guilt or penalty. The Court further found that it was proper for the adjudicator to consider the applicant's prior disciplinary breaches in making this determination. The Court emphasised that ignoring such breaches would result in an unprincipled outcome, as a repetition of offending might not be appropriately referred to a Visiting Justice, even if a higher penalty would be justified upon a finding of guilt.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the adjudicator's decision was valid and that there was no prospect of success for the appeal. The Court's reasoning focused on the limited scope of the adjudicator's role and the appropriateness of considering prior disciplinary breaches in assessing the seriousness of the conduct. The Court's decision ultimately upheld the Court of Appeal's determination and denied the applicant's leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established