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 part for drug-related offending.

[7]    It will be for the parties in that proceeding to address the issue, with reference to any official documents they might wish the Court to consider.

[8]    Accordingly, as the injunction is sought on an interlocutory (or interim) basis, it is sufficiently clear that there is, for the reasons I have given, no serious issue to be tried, that the balance of inconvenience favours the Attorney-General and that the overall interests of justice are not such that there would otherwise be a basis for the injunction to be granted.1

[9]The plaintiff’s application for an injunction is declined accordingly.

[10]   It is not understood that costs are sought at this stage but, if that is not the case, they can be addressed in the course of concluding the substantive judicial review proceeding.

Radich J

Solicitors:

Crown Law Office, Wellington for Defendant

1      Being the three matters to be considered on an application for an interlocutory injunction. See

Intellihub v Genesis Energy Ltd [2020] NZCA 344 at [23].