RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC v THE ABORTION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE SC 73/2011
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to three specific issues — the scope of the Committee's powers to review certifying consultants, the evidential foundation for the High Court's findings about approval rates, and the High Court's jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of consultants' decisions — and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 73/2011
- Parties
- Appellant: Right to Life New Zealand Inc; Respondent: The Abortion Supervisory Committee
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 26 August 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted on specified grounds; leave refused on remaining grounds
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Scope of Regulatory Powers, Certifying Consultants, Evidential Findings, Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Right to Life New Zealand Inc
Appellant
The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Supreme Court Appeal / Leave to Appeal Granted
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee's functions under s14(1)(a),(i),(k) and s36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of those decisions
- 2 Whether there is an evidential foundation for the High Court's finding regarding high approval rates and the requirement under s187A of the Crimes Act 1961 that consultants form a good faith opinion about serious danger to the mother's health
- 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants are obeying the "abortion law" and whether there is evidential foundation for its finding that there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many authorised abortions
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to three specific issues — the scope of the Committee's powers to review certifying consultants, the evidential foundation for the High Court's findings about approval rates, and the High Court's jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of consultants' decisions — and declined leave on other grounds because they were plainly untenable given the legislation's premise of the born alive rule and prior appellate reasoning.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted on specified grounds; leave refused on remaining grounds
Orders
- Leave to appeal is granted.
- Approved grounds for appeal are (a) scope of Committee's functions to review certifying consultants and determine lawfulness, (b) whether there is evidential foundation for the High Court's finding regarding approval rates, and (c) whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC v THE ABORTION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE SC 73/2011 26 August 2011IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDSC 73/2011[2011] NZSC 97BETWEEN RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INCAppellantAND THE ABORTION SUPERVISORYCOMMITTEERespondentCourt: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJCounsel: P D McKenzie QC and I C Bassett for AppellantC R Gwyn and W L Aldred for RespondentJudgment: 26 August 2011JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA Leave to appeal is granted.B The approved grounds are:(a) Whether the respondent Committee's functions underss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation forthe High Court's finding that "the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in seriousdanger to the mother's health".(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants are obeying the"abortion law" (as defined) and, if so, whether thereis any evidential foundation for the High Court'sfinding that "there is reason to doubt the lawfulnessof many abortions authorised by certifyingconsultants".REASONS[1] We decline leave to appeal on all other grounds raised by the appellant (being those encompassed in paragraphs 1.9–1.19 of the application for leave dated 28 June 2011) because it is plain that the legislation was based on the premise of the"born alive" rule, in the face of which the proposed arguments are untenable.Likewise the proposed argument concerning independence of counselling cannot succeed for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.Solicitors:P J Doody, Christchurch for AppellantCrown Law Office, Wellington