Wedgwood v The Queen

[2020] NZHC 278

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-000079

[2020] NZHC 278

BETWEEN

ASTON EDWARD WILLIAM ERNEST WEDGWOOD
Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Hearing:	Determined on the papers
Representation:	A E W E Wedgwood (Applicant) in person
Judgment:	26 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 February 2020 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WEDGWOOD v R [2020] NZHC 278 [26 February 2020]

Introduction

[1]    Aston Edward William Ernest Wedgwood has tendered for filing a form of application and a supporting affidavit.

[2]The application is expressly entitled:

Interlocutory emergency application for ordering the Crown to give medically endorsed prescriptions of medical necessaries of life – palliative per absolute duties under International Convention on Political and Civil Rights and Disability Convention WITHOUT NOTICE.

The previous documents

[3]    Mr Wedgwood had a week earlier tendered for filing a document with a similar heading, but naming as respondent “Et al Megan Woods”.

(“the previous documents).

[4]    The Registrar referred the previous documents to Wylie J pursuant to r 5.35A High Court Rules.

[5]    Wylie J considered the previous documents by reference to r 5.35B and the inherent jurisdiction and struck out the matter. The Court’s Minute of 17 February 2020 appears as Schedule A to this judgment.

Documents now filed

[6]    The documents filed by Mr Wedgwood are defective in form and objectionable in substance.

[7]    In form the application is filed as if it is an interlocutory application, yet there is no substantive proceeding before the Court. The only document seeking relief is that in which the heading begins “interlocutory emergency application” which appears intended to be treated as an application (without notice) for an interim mandatory injunction (for instance, “ordering the Crown to give medically endorsed prescriptions

…”).

[8]    As a result, there is nothing in the form of application filed which identifies the legal cause or causes  of  action  relied  upon.  It  is  accordingly  unclear  whether Mr Wedgwood is intending to sue the Crown for breach of a duty owed to him (whether it common law or otherwise) or is intending to make an application for judicial review. In the latter case the person or persons whose act or omission is the intended subject matter of the application would need to be named as respondents.

[9]    Against that background I have reviewed the 86 paragraph affidavit filed by Mr Wedgwood, together with the 26 exhibits. The affidavit is so discursive as to be incapable of comprehension. There are repeated references to assaults or wrongs committed by unnamed persons, Government failures which have resulted in “torturous injuries, rapes, grievous internal assaults and permanent severe injury”, ACC never having heeded medical evidence; and “acts of injudicious disregard evidence by Government frequently constantly results in terms of UN conventions, torture claims”. These are merely instances of many such generalised, unspecific allegations.

[10]   In Mathiesen v Fildes, I adopted a two-pronged test for strike-out purposes under r 5.35B, which asks:1

(a)whether it would be manifestly unfair to the respondents that they be required to respond; and

(b)whether right thinking people would regard the Court as exercising very poor control of its processes if it were to allow the applicant’s document/s to be regarded as proper documents.

[11]   Mr Wedgwood’s proceeding fails at both levels. I am satisfied that it would clearly be manifestly unfair to the Crown that it be required to respond to the documents filed. Similarly, any right thinking person would regard it as poor judgement to allow these documents to be treated as proper documents.

1      Mathiesen v Fildes [2017] NZHC 2258, (2017) 24 PRNZ 405 at [4], adopting Reid v New Zealand Trotting Conference [1984] 1 NZLR 8, at [9].

[12]   If Mr Wedgwood has one or more identifiable causes of action against one or more decision-makers or actor, they should be capable of being clearly identified and pleaded in an appropriate originating document in which the appropriate respondent or respondents are named. Similarly, any application for interim relief may be appropriately filed but needs to be supported by a focused affidavit, referable to the facts pleaded and the relief sought in the originating documents, and compiled in a way which is capable of being directly and coherently replied to by the respondent.

[13]   In the form the present documents have been filed, the proceeding is plainly an abuse of process.

Order

[14]I order that this proceeding be struck out.

Right of appeal

[15]The applicant has the right to appeal this decision.2

ADDENDUM:

[16]   Mr Wedgwood has elected to state on his “Interlocutory Emergency Application” that his address for service is “High Court Registrar’s Counter”. Nothing in the High Court Rules (at r 5.44(1) or elsewhere) precludes Mr Wedgwood from electing that as his address for service. I therefore record that any documents in this proceeding, including this judgment, are effectively served at the time they are placed on that counter, whether or not Mr Wedgwood is in attendance.

Osborne J

Copy to:

Mr A E W E Wedgwood

2      HCR 5.35B(3).

SCHEDULE A