Reekie v Department of Corrections

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeEllis J
Judgment Date20 June 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] NZHC 1412
Docket NumberCIV-2012-404-002814
CourtHigh Court
Date20 June 2012

Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

and

Under the Declaratory Judgment Act 1908

In the Matter of an Application for Judicial Review and Interim Relief

Between
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie
Plaintiff
and
Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Respondent

[2012] NZHC 1412

CIV-2012-404-002814

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY

Application by serving prisoner for interim orders under s8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 (interim orders) — plaintiff sought judicial review of respondent's decision to transfer him to Springhill Prison and sought orders halting all misconduct proceedings pending against him and for medication regime to be reinstated — pending charges were scheduled to be heard by a Visiting Justice who had indicated they would not be adjourned while the applicant prepared for another hearing in District Court — whether interim orders were to be granted — whether plaintiff's interests in getting interim relief outweighed the public interest against it.

Counsel:

Plaintiff in Person (via Audio Visual Link)

J Catran and Ms Inverarity for the Respondent

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF Ellis J

1

Mr Reekie is serving prisoner a sentence of preventive detention. Since 28 February 2012 he has been imprisoned at Springhill Correctional Facility (Springhill). Just prior to that date he was detained for a fortnight at Auckland Prison to enable him to participate in a two week civil hearing in the Auckland High Court. Before that, he was imprisoned at the Northern Regional Correctional Facility (NRCF), at Ngawha.

2

This judgment relates to an application by Mr Reekie for interim orders under s 8 of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972. That application, and his underlying claims for judicial review and for declaratory relief, relates to a wide range of matters arising from his present circumstances. Central to his concerns, however, is his desire to be transferred from Springhill to Auckland Prison.

3

Mr Reekie, who is self-represented, consented to appear before me by video link with Springhill. Although Mr Reekie is one of the more able and well informed lay-litigants that I have seen, I formed the view that his circumstances required that he be given a considerable amount of leeway, particularly when it came to the cross-over between his role as both witness and advocate.

4

That said, however, a number of the factual statements made by Mr Reekie were disputed by the Crown and could not properly be tested in the context of an interim orders application, particularly given the quantity of new material received from Mr Reekie just prior to the hearing. Some distillation of that material has also been required in the course of preparing this judgment, in which I have attempted to focus on the key issues at this, interim, stage.

5

More specifically, the interim orders sought by Mr Reekie are that:

  • (a) he be immediately transfer back to (Unit 2, West Division) Auckland Prison;

  • (b) all misconduct proceedings and/or penalties that are pending against him at Springhill immediately be halted; and

  • (c) the medication regime to which he was subject before he was sent to Springhill be immediately reinstated;

6

Mr Reekie also sought (interim) declarations that:

  • (i) all interferences with his ability to conduct his legal affairs cease immediately and that the respondent should, “to the degree that is reasonable in the circumstances”, respect those rights and entitlements and not seek to curtail them or his ability to exercise them;

  • (ii) the respondent and his employees, agents and servants “ought not to commit any further breaches of the Corrections Act 2004, the Corrections Regulations 2005 or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the interim, in respect of the plaintiff's rights and interests contained … within those various Acts and Regulations”.

7

Before addressing the merits of the applications, it is necessary to say a little more about the background to them.

8

As regards transfer, Mr Reekie has particular concerns about:

  • (a) the manner in which he was moved to Springill (which he says was effectively without notice and contrary to expectations that had been given him by Corrections staff). In this respect I note that even Mr Kanawa (the Acting Prison Manager at Springhill) has described the placement of someone such as Mr Reekie at that facility as “unusual”;

  • (b) his subsequent (and, Mr Reekie would say, consequential) change of security classification from “low-medium” to “high-medium”;

  • (c) the nature of the facilities at Springhill, which he says are not designed or equipped to deal with prisoners such as he who are voluntarily segregated from their fellow inmates;

  • (d) the location of Springhill, because it is some distance from his support networks in Auckland. In particular his incarceration at Springill means that it is very difficult for his partner, Ms Wood (who also routinely acts as his MacKenzie friend in relation to various litigation matters) to visit during normal visiting hours which, for those in Mr Reekie's unit, are essentially confined to certain weekdays. Ms Wood has a job in Auckland which means she is only able to travel to Springhill on Mondays and Sundays, which days are outside visiting periods. Because visits outside ordinary hours are discretionary, this has a flow on effect in terms of Mr Reekie's ability to conduct his legal affairs.

9

As regards the misconduct charges, Mr Reekie presently faces a number of these. The charges appear to me to relate to comparatively minor matters, principally involving his interactions with other prisoners and with staff. 1 The possibility of some connection between the alleged behaviour giving rise to the charges and Mr Reekie's desire to be transferred necessarily arises.

10

Mr Reekie's position, however, is that the charges have arisen because he is being deliberately and unfairly targeted as a result of other Court proceedings he has taken against the Corrections Department and/or prison staff.

11

More relevant for present (interim relief) purposes is that a number of the pending charges are scheduled to be heard by a Visiting Justice on 21 June. 2 It is his

ability to prepare and to defend these charges that is directly at issue in the present context. In particular he says that the Visiting Justice's recent indication that she would not grant him an adjournment of the 21 June hearing is prejudicial and unfair because
  • (a) He is also trying to prepare for a hearing in the District Court in Huntly on 29 June;

  • (b) He has not been permitted access to certain portions of CCTV footage that he says is relevant to his defence of the charges. He is also concerned that as a result of departmental policy the relevant footage will be deleted before his substantive proceedings can be determined;

  • (c) In terms of preparation more generally he has had limited and unsatisfactory access to his MacKenzie friend, Ms Wood, not only by virtue of the matters to which I have already referred, but also because:

    • (i) He is unable to have satisfactory telephone conversations with her; and

    • (ii) When he is able to meet with her they are required to sit in a small booth which has insufficient space for all his papers. 3

12

As far as the medications issue is concerned, Mr Reekie had concerns about the dosages he had been prescribed for various medicines, but as I understand it these have now been resolved. There is (he says) an ongoing issue about access, although he accepts that there is now a plan in place whereby he is to be given the relevant medicines on a daily basis. While he says that this plan is sometimes thwarted by the medicines not being delivered in a timely way by medical staff to the staff on his unit, my sense was that this has now become a minor matter.

13

In terms of the two declarations sought by Mr Reekie, the first relates to matters I have already discussed such as visitation arrangements but also (as I understand it) to the way in which the respondent is dealing with the large number of complaints and information requests presently being made by Mr Reekie. There have, in fact, been so many complaints made by Mr Reekie that a dedicated prison officer has been assigned to liaise, and attempt to resolve them, with him. Similarly he has now made so many information requests that Springhill is not able to deal with them and they are all referred to Corrections Head Office in Wellington. Again, it seems fair to infer that there is a correlation between the scale of Mr Reekie's activities in these spheres and the transfer issue.

14

The second declaration sought seems to me to be of an omnibus, or “catch all”, variety whose content adds little to the specific matters I have already outlined.

Should the Interim Orders be Granted?
15

Section 8(1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 (JAA) provides:

Subject to subsection (2) of this section, at any time before the final determination of an application for review, and on the application of any party, the Court may, if in its opinion it is necessary to do so for the purpose of preserving the position of the applicant, make an interim order for all or any of the following purposes:

  • (a) Prohibiting any respondent to the application for review from taking any further action that is or would be consequential on the exercise of the statutory power:

  • (b) Prohibiting or staying any proceedings, civil or criminal, in connection with any matter to which the application for review relates:

  • (c) Declaring any licence that has been revoked or suspended in the exercise of the statutory power, or that will expire by effluxion of time before the final determination of the application for review, to continue and, where necessary, to be deemed to have continued in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Macmillan v The Chief Executive of The Department of Corrections
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 6 September 2021
    ...Breweries Ltd v Minister of Customs [1986] 1 NZLR 423 (CA) at 430 per Cooke J. Reekie v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2012] NZHC 1412, [2012] NZAR At [23]. [18] Even assuming that Mr MacMillan has a position to preserve in the sense of an entitlement to suitable pain med......
  • Reekie v Department of Corrections
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 20 June 2012
    ...HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2012-404-002814 [2012] NZHC 1412 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 AND UNDER the Declaratory Judgment Act 1908 IN THE MATTER OF an Application for Judicial Review and Interim Relief BETWEEN NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE Plaintiff AND CHIEF......
  • Gorgus v The Chief Executive of The Department of Corrections
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 1 September 2020
    ...Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 2158. At [9] and [13]. At [19]. Reekie v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2012] NZHC 1412. She considered that he had no position to “preserve” under s 8 of the Amendment Act 1972 and an applicant cannot obtain by interim orders what co......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT