New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Religious instruction in state schools

Legal area

Court

13 May 2020

HINES v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 983

Citation

[2020] NZHC 983
Court

High Court

The Court admitted contextual evidence about the presence and effects of religious activity in state schools under the s106 discretion where it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, but excluded anonymous, specific hearsay examples offered as proof of alleged facts (not merely proof that complaints were made) because they lacked the necessary indicia of reliability and would unfairly prejudice the defendant; trial judge to weigh admitted evidence and determine weight at trial.
18 Jul 2018

HINES & ANOR v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 1776

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1776
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave under s122A(2)(a) because the proceedings raise an important question of law concerning the consistency of statutory provisions authorising religious instruction in State schools with s19 NZBORA, and, on the particular facts including systemic Tribunal delay and absence of opposition, removal to the High Court for determination is appropriate while emphasising that removal of Tribunal matters is exceptional and not a remedy for systemic delay.
6 Apr 2016

MCCLINTOCK v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 592

Citation

[2016] NZHC 592
Court

High Court

The Court allowed joinder of Mr Hines and Ms Jacob and the Human Rights Commission as interested non-parties but exercised its discretion to limit participation: Hines and Jacob may only rely on the affidavit of Professor Morris and may not file further evidence or cross-examine; they must file joint written submissions (max 6,000 words) by 3pm 21 April 2016 and may attend the hearing; the Commission may file written submissions (max 6,000 words) by the same date and may not produce evidence or cross-examine. The restrictions were imposed because the applicants lacked a direct legal interest,…
9 Jun 2015

McCLINTOCK v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 1280

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1280
Court

High Court

The Court granted CEC leave to join as an interested non-party because CEC's interests will be directly affected by the declarations sought, its participation will materially improve the quality of information available to the Court, the Crown's interests are not necessarily aligned with CEC and CEC cannot rely on the Crown to protect its rights; joinder is therefore necessary and justified but must be subject to conditions limiting scope and preventing costs recovery by CEC.

New Zealand Case Law

HINES v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 983

HINES & ANOR v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 1776

MCCLINTOCK v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 592

McCLINTOCK v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND & ORS [2015] NZHC 1280