⚖️ High Court Challenge: 

Wereta v Attorney-General (2025)

In early 2025, a group of prisoners from Auckland Prison filed a High Court challenge against the New Zealand Department of Corrections.  The case, Wereta v Attorney-General, questions the legality of the Persons of Extreme Risk Unit (PERU) operating model and its related regimes (PERD and TNOC).

The claimants argued that their long-term isolation inside PERU amounts to unlawful segregation and breaches both the Corrections Act 2004 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, particularly the right to humane treatment and freedom from cruel, degrading, or disproportionately harsh conditions.

Corrections defended the policy, saying PERU was necessary for “security management” of high-risk prisoners.  The prisoners’ lawyers asked the Court to rule—at a preliminary stage—that PERU’s framework itself was unlawful and beyond Corrections’ legal authority.

On 15 April 2025, Justice Jagose declined to make that early ruling.  He held that the issues were too complex and fact-dependent to decide in isolation and should instead be heard at a full trial where all evidence can be examined.  The request for a “preliminary question” was therefore dismissed.

The decision did not decide whether PERU is lawful or unlawful—it simply means the question will need to be determined later, once the Court has all the facts and testimony before it.  The challenge itself remains active, and the claimants are expected to pursue a full hearing.

Legal observers note that this is the first time the New Zealand High Court has directly scrutinised the PERU model.  The case has already drawn national attention, and the Ombudsman has separately described PERU conditions as “cruel, inhuman, and degrading.”

(Source: Wereta v Attorney-General [2025] NZHC — Auckland Registry; Law News NZ report, April 2025.)