PRASAD V THE DEPORTATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-008059

PRASAD V THE DEPORTATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-008059

The High Court held the Tribunal's reasoned decision was open on the evidence: the Tribunal properly applied s22(5)/(6) and international obligations, correctly found deliberate non-disclosure breaching s34G, and reasonably concluded removal would not be unjust or unduly harsh; consequently there was no real prospect of success on judicial review and interim relief was dismissed.

Citation
openlaw-005f6062_f681_43b7_a3be_23d2f61aa25f.pdf
Parties
Applicant: Reshma Ranjani Devi Prasad; First Respondent: The Deportation Review Tribunal; Second Respondent: Her Majesty's Attorney-General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (immigration) / Application for Interim Relief (decision)
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed
Legal Topics
Revocation of Residence, Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Best Interests of the Child (crc Article 3), International Obligations (iccpr Article 23), Statutory Disclosure Obligations (s34 G), S22 Appeals Under Immigration Act 1987
Immigration Law Administrative Law Family Law Human Rights Law Revocation of Residence Judicial Review Wednesbury Unreasonableness Best Interests of the Child (crc Article 3) International Obligations (iccpr Article 23) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reshma Ranjani Devi Prasad

Applicant

The Deportation Review Tribunal

First Respondent

Her Majesty's Attorney-General

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (immigration) / Application for Interim Relief (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deportation Review Tribunal's decision was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense
  2. 2 Whether revocation and requirement to leave New Zealand was disproportionate to the applicant's conduct
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to give sufficient weight to the interests of the applicant's New Zealand citizen child (CRC Article 3.1)

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the Tribunal's reasoned decision was open on the evidence: the Tribunal properly applied s22(5)/(6) and international obligations, correctly found deliberate non-disclosure breaching s34G, and reasonably concluded removal would not be unjust or unduly harsh; consequently there was no real prospect of success on judicial review and interim relief was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed

Orders

  • Interim relief dismissed
  • Costs reserved (Attorney-General to file memorandum seeking costs within 14 days if desired)