Hartley v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2020] NZHC 131 (11 February 2020)

Last Updated: 17 February 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-680 [2020] NZHC 131

UNDER	the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
BETWEEN	PETER JOHN HARTLEY Plaintiff
AND	THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant

Teleconference:	10 February 2020
Appearances:	S J Fraser for the Applicant A Powell for the Defendant
Judgment:	11 February 2020

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

[1] The plaintiff, Mr Peter Hartley has advanced various claims against the defendant under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The claims are fully described in an amended statement of claim dated 29 April 2019.

[2] The parties have now agreed to resolve the claims by the Court making a declaration. I was initially inclined to simply make the orders the parties had agreed by consent, but the parties have asked that I record the reasons in a short judgment. I accept it is appropriate to do so.

Relevant factual circumstances

[3] The claims concern the actions of the Department of Corrections when transporting Mr Hartley on two occasions while he was a serving inmate. First when

HARTLEY v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 131 [11

February 2020]

he was transferred to Rimutaka Prison to Tongariro Prison on 30 November 2016, and secondly when he was transported from Tongariro to Rimutaka Prison on 14 December 2016.

[4] Mr Hartley contended that his treatment on those journeys breached his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and he sought relief in the form of declarations.

[5] The defendant accepts that Mr Hartley’s treatment on the two occasions specified breached his rights under s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. That was so because he was placed in a situation where he was forced to urinate on himself and his clothing. In particular, the defendant accepts the plaintiff’s factual ascertain that during a scheduled stop on each of those journeys at Manawatu Prison he was not given the opportunity to use the toilet, nor were any alternative arrangements made for him.

[6] The defendant agrees to the making of the declaration contemplated by the facts set out above, and Mr Hartley agrees with the defendant that a declaratory judgment can be given by consent. The balance of the claims advanced by Mr Hartley will be discontinued by the plaintiff filing a notice of discontinuance.

[7] I agree that in the circumstances referred to the agreed declaration is in order. Accordingly I grant the following declaration by consent:

That Mr Hartley’s treatment during his transportation by the defendant on 30 November 2016 and 14 December 2016 was in breach of s 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

[8] It is also agreed that there be no order as to costs.

Cooke J

Solicitors:

John Miller Law, Wellington for Applicant Crown Law, Wellington for Respondents