Prisoners rights case attempting to improve the victories in the High Court and the Court of Appeal finding a breach of section 9 and section 23(5) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and awarding compensation for being held in the Behavioural Management Regime at Auckland Prison. Whilst the case was mostly unsuccessful in the Supreme Court in that compensation was reduced, it is notable for the Chief Justices’ dissenting judgement which is a masterpiece of articulation of International Human Rights.
Also listed in the Law Reports of the Commonwealth. See SWARB (UK) for a summary of the case. SWARB notes the case was cited in Privy Council case Takitota v the Attorney General and others [2009] UKPC 11 paragraphs 14 to 19, extract below:
‘…The Privy Council returned to the subject in Inniss v Attorney General of Saint Christopher and Nevis [2008] UKPC 42, where Lord Hope of Craighead, giving the judgment of the Board, cited the guidance given by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in Taunoa v Attorney General [2007] 5 LRC 680, a case brought for damages for breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. He related the purpose of vindication of the claimant’s rights to the effect of an award in deterrence of executive wrongdoing in a passage at para 27:
“The purpose of the award, whether it is made to redress the contravention or as relief, is to vindicate the right. It is not to punish the Executive. But vindication involves an assertion that the right is a valuable one, as to whose enforcement the complainant herself has an interest. Any award of damages for its contravention is bound, to some extent at least, to act as a deterrent against further breaches. The fact that it may be expected to do so is something to which it is proper to have regard.”‘
SEE JUDGMENT SEE CASE ON SWARB