New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Convention against torture

Legal area

Court

27 Jul 2020

M (CA677/2017) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH) _x000b_[2020] NZCA 311

Citation

(2020) 32 FRNZ 685
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal: the High Court correctly found on the facts and law that the statutory regimes and clinical practices were lawful and did not breach NZBORA or give rise to arbitrary detention; CRPD and CAT obligations cannot override clear domestic statutory authorisations; specific complaints (litigation guardian, sexual policy, absence of s148 guidelines, s130 delegation, s76 reviews, s31(4) direction, failure to inform of rights, second opinions) were either unsupported by evidence or legally untenable.
6 Mar 2019

AO (Cameroon) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2019] NZHC 360

Citation

[2019] NZHC 360
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the Tribunal's credibility and factual findings had an available evidential basis, the expert and country evidence relied upon were either predicated on facts the Tribunal rejected or inapplicable on the facts as found, and the statutory thresholds for leave (no question of law of general or public importance nor exceptional individual injustice) were not met.
19 Oct 2018

BC (Philippines) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2722

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2722
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because it was not seriously arguable that the duty to give reasons requires the Tribunal to articulate a specific 'analytical path' for credibility assessments; existing authorities establish a flexible, fact-sensitive approach and the Tribunal gave adequate reasons in this case, so the proposed question was not of general or public importance under s245.
28 Sept 2018

AA (ZIMBABWE) & ANOR v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZHC 2523

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2523
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any seriously arguable error of law; the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were supported by evidence and country material, and the peripheral challenges and additional evidence did not show errors of fact so grave as to amount to errors of law under s245.
11 Nov 2010

R V THE REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-003296

Citation

openlaw-98a288ad_2bba_4686_b100_12dfa777d55c.pdf
Court

High Court

The RSAA properly considered the medical evidence, accepted the applicant had low IQ and mental health issues but reasonably concluded those factors did not undermine the prior independent adverse credibility findings and, on the evidence before it, there was no real chance of persecution on return; therefore the judicial review application fails and is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

M (CA677/2017) v ATTORNEY-GENERAL (IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH) _x000b_[2020] NZCA 311

AO (Cameroon) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2019] NZHC 360

BC (Philippines) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2722

AA (ZIMBABWE) & ANOR v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZHC 2523

R V THE REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-003296