High Court strikes out prisoner’s generic claims against prison director

• matters that allegedly occurred in other prisons before 10 December 2004, the date when he transferred to ASCF 
• his interactions with other prisons and the legal system over the sufficiency of facilities he supposedly needed to get ready for litigation 

The applicant argued that the prison system amounted to “a treasonously introduced regime” due to “Gestapo tactics of infiltration and control of government organisations.” 

The subsequent paragraphs of the applicant’s claim covered: 

• the allegedly substandard computer facilities for himself and fellow ASCF prisoners 
• instances when he made written complaints and raised concerns with ASCF staff and received no response or an allegedly insufficient response 

The applicant, who was an experienced self-litigant, asserted the following causes of action: 

• a negligent, egregious failure to tackle the key reasons for his transfer to ASCF 
• an intentional malfeasance to ignore certain correspondence and complaint forms 
• the prison manager’s failure to maintain a proper process and provide access to adequate and fit-for-purpose computer resources and ancillary facilities 

Claim struck

Ruling in the prison director’s favour, the High Court of New Zealand struck out the applicant’s claim upon deeming it vexatious, prolix, and abusive of the judicial process. The court found the prison director apparently entitled to costs and disbursements. 

The High Court ruled that the applicant’s claim: 

• lacked sufficient particulars 
• was of a gratuitous, offensive, and unintelligible nature, despite a previous warning not to file such claims 
• was not properly recast, despite his ample opportunity to recast it 
• contained wide-ranging and extensive allegations, seemingly unrelated to the prison director’s conduct 
• did not properly plead his generic complaints about the standard of computerised assistance offered at ASCF 
• insufficiently described the nature of the computer facilities provided, the facilities’ specific deficiencies, the particular purposes for which better facilities were necessary, and the consequent extent of prisoner entitlements 
• requested disconnected remedies, including an investigation, which was unavailable 

The High Court held that the claim’s defects led to others. According to the court, because adequate allegations did not support the causes of action, the claim on its face failed to justify the requested remedies. 

The High Court concluded that it could not conceivably grant remedies like damages and mandatory orders concerning the applicant’s accommodations while in prison in the context of a judicial review proceeding such as this.