Move to strike out Chase case claim

Press, 9 July 1986, Page 4

Move to strike out Chase case claim

PA Wellington Neither the family nor the executor had any right to damages from the estate of Paul Chase, shot dead by the police in April 1983, the Crown solicitor, Mr Jim Larsen, submitted in the High Court in Wellington. Mr Larsen was making submissions in support of a motion to strike out two statements of claim. The plaintiffs in one action are Harold Te Are Are Chase, Paul Chase’s father; Lucy Rangi Taniwha Chase, Paul Chase’s wife; and Tracy Rotu Chase, his daughter. The plaintiff in the other action is the Public Trustee. Damages of $200,000 are being claimed against the Attor-ney-General; Judgment in the pretrial motion was reserved by Mr Justice Heron. Mr Larsen said the two actions arose from the fatal shooting on April 18, 1983, of Mr Chase. In each of the statements of claim in the two actions it was alleged that the police officers effected a

forcible. entry of Mr Chase's premises and that a police officer shot and fatally wounded Mr Chase, It was alleged that such entry and shooting were an irresponsible and/or neglectful and/or high-handed and/or oppressive use of police powers. Declarations were sought to that effect and damages of $200,000 were sought.

Mr ' Larsen said that there was no allegation whatsoever which would give the plaintiffs any standing, which would give them any basis upon which relief could be sought upon which they could have any Interest in what was alleged to have occurred or in its consequences.

Mr Larsen said that putting aside the question of any standing of the three plaintiffs and dealing with the more general issues raised by the two actions, it was his submission that there was in neither case no enforceable right to damages and there was no right to a declaration. Mr Larsen said section 27 of the Accident Compensation Act provided a bar to proceedings arising directly out of personal injury or death as the result of personal injury. Exemplary damages were not recoverable by virtue of the Law Reformation Act and not recoverable by virtue of section 27 of the Accident Compensation Act. Replying, Mr John McLinden said that if the Court acceded to the defendant’s application it was submitted a very serious situation existed. Neither Mr Chase’s estate nor his dependants could raise issues in a civil jurisdiction dealing with the unlawfulness and/or the negligence of the police officers in carrying out their duties.

. “Because of the gravity of the allegations in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim it is respectfully submitted the claims

should be struck out only, as a last resort- by the Court, which should give every opportunity for the plaintiffs’ grievances to be traversed in its jurisdiction,” Mr McLinden said. He said the shooting of Mr Chase had so far been the subject of two limited inouiries. The first was by Mr C. M. Nicholson, Q.C., who reported to the Minister of Police on September 30, 1983, after an independent investigation into the facts. Mr Nicholson’s investigation of the position was necessarily limited by the fact that he did not hold a public inquiry at which the police could be crossexamined about their actions.

Mr McLinden said the second investigation was by the Upper Hutt Coroner’s Court which investigated the cause of death in a public inquiry of a limited nature. However, at ,that stage interested parties had the opportunity to crossexamine the police.

“Some of the Coroner’s observations cause the plaintiffs concern, because they indicate there

may be unsatisfactory police handling of the matter,". Mr McLinden said. "But the Coroner was not called upon to make a finding on the negligence or otherwise of the police and so the shortcomings that emerged during the course of that hearing may only be the tip of the iceberg — Indeed that is the view taken by the plaintiffs. "The fact that this is the first attempt, to have the matter dealt with in a public forum is therefore of considerable significance so far as the accountability of the police is concerned," Mr McLindensaid. He said it was accepted that section 27 of the Accident Compensation Act, 1982, prohibited proceedings for what were known as general aggravated damages. But it was x clear, as the result of a previous case cited, that a plaintiff could still bring an action for trespass to the person (assault), claiming exemplary damages in spite of the accident compensation provision referred to earlier.