New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Benefit of the doubt

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2021

DY (PAKISTAN) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2021] NZCA 522

Citation

[2021] NZCA 522
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were declined because although an arguable legal question was identified about the analytical approach, the IPT and High Court robustly examined the evidence, the credibility findings were open to the Tribunal on the facts, and there was no real prospect that adopting the alternative approach urged by the applicant would have produced a different outcome; the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant High Court consideration.
23 Apr 2021

DY (PAKISTAN) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2021] NZHC 874

Citation

[2021] NZHC 874
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were supported by the evidence and not insupportable as a matter of law; the applicant failed to establish a seriously arguable error of law or matters of general or public importance warranting leave, therefore leave to appeal and leave for judicial review were properly refused.
14 Apr 2021

AL (THAILAND) v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL (REMOVED) [2021] NZHC 810

Citation

[2021] NZHC 810
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's factual findings — that detention without bail was speculative on the evidence and that there was not a real chance the applicant would be denied essential medication in Thai prison — were open on the material before it; the applicant failed to show a seriously arguable error of law under Taafi and Jiao did not require the Tribunal to compensate for absent verifiable evidence; accordingly leave to appeal is declined.
31 Jul 2017

HA v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2017] NZHC 1787

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1787
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to establish a seriously arguable error of law: the Tribunal's adverse credibility and plausibility findings were supported by an evidential foundation including inconsistencies, implausibilities and materially similar documents linked to a co-claimant; the fresh evidence was unverified and not sufficiently cogent; and the issues were case-specific and not of general or public importance.
12 Aug 2016

KEELAN v HYLAND [2016] NZHC 1869

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1869
Court

High Court

All declaratory applications were declined: the Te Ua decision largely restated the old statute and cannot be read wholesale into the new Veterans' Support Act 2014; the new Act has a different scheme (statements of principles, s14/s15 process) and presumptions that must be applied on their own terms; declaratory relief was inappropriate in the absence of decisions under the new Act and where matters were discretionary, fact-specific or administrative.
4 Dec 2014

BV v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL CA188/2014 [2014] NZCA 594

Citation

[2014] NZCA 594
Court

Court of Appeal

The Tribunal lawfully applied established credibility principles, identified material inconsistencies and implausibilities in the appellant's accounts, afforded him opportunity to respond, and therefore its adverse credibility findings and consequent rejection of the refugee claim were lawful, not a breach of natural justice, and not unreasonable.
24 Feb 2014

CAO v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2014] NZHC 259

Citation

[2014] NZHC 259
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal correctly applied settled legal principles (including the benefit of the doubt); its credibility findings were open to it on the evidence and any factual errors were not so grave as to constitute an error of law or warrant High Court determination, and the applicant's proceedings were properly treated as brought within time given lack of statutory service as required.
17 Sept 2010

M v REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY at 4.30 pm]

Citation

openlaw-f0da128b_4d4b_4ab2_a868_443535580f3e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused judicial review because the Authority's adverse credibility findings were supported by rational reasons (applicant's prior involvement in corrupt activity, inconsistencies in conduct, and inherent implausibility of claim that [D] orchestrated prosecution and conviction), the Authority was not required to warn the applicant about adverse credibility, the applicant bore the onus to establish a well‑founded fear and failed to do so, and the complaints were not properly characterisable as political opinion; the Authority's decision was within its specialist expertise and not irr…