1 May 2013
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and certified two questions for determination: whether the Court of Appeal's interpretation of s 14(a) is correct and whether s 95(2) precludes relief following dismissal of the High Court appeal against the removal order.
25 May 2012
Detention was lawful because the applicant remained subject to a valid removal order and an immigration officer requested police arrest for deportation under the Immigration Act 2009 (ss310,313); the respondent satisfied the statutory onus and there was no stay or legal bar from pending Supreme Court matters or parole conditions.
25 May 2012
The removal order under the Immigration Act 2009 had legal force and effect; therefore the appellant's arrest and detention pending deportation were lawful and the habeas corpus application failed. There was no breach of natural justice, counsel contact attempts were made, the children lacked standing, and parole or pending leave application did not render the detention unlawful.
15 Feb 2011
The High Court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant did not pursue the statutory route of appeal to the Removal Review Authority under s47 and there is no RRA decision for the Court to review; execution of the removal order for a prisoner requires a Ministerial release under Parole Act s55 as applied by Immigration Act 2009 s178(3) and there is no evidence of such release; an application for judicial review would be time barred under s146A absent special circumstances; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
26 Nov 2010
Interim relief was granted restraining enforcement of the removal order because there was a real prospect that the Minister's 25 March 2008 letter gave rise to arguable rights and the applicant's position and ability to pursue appeal rights would be prejudiced by immediate removal; preservation of the position until a contested inter partes hearing was necessary and proportionate.
23 Sept 2010
On the authority of Parmanadan, an immigration officer is not required to apply the s 47(3) test when making a removal order under s 54; alternatively, even if s 47(3) applied, the officer considered the relevant humanitarian and child welfare matters, correctly concluded there were no exceptional circumstances, and the removal order was open to the officer, so judicial review fails.
17 Nov 2009
There is no legal barrier preventing Immigration New Zealand from executing a removal order against a person serving home detention because s 61 expressly applies to persons held in prison undergoing imprisonment and does not extend to home detention; furthermore the applicant did not meet the exceptional humanitarian threshold required under s 47(3), therefore the interim stay was discharged and the application for interim relief dismissed.
6 Nov 2009
The Court awarded costs to the respondents on the 2B basis and accepted the respondents' unchallenged calculation of $9,760 because the plaintiffs discontinued the proceedings and did not respond to the respondents' costs memorandum.
2 Feb 2009
The appeal was unsuccessful and the appellant filed no response to the costs application; therefore the court exercised its discretion to award the respondent 2B costs and disbursements totalling $2,644.18.
19 Dec 2008
The interim application was dismissed because the statutory power in s59 authorised arrest and detention to execute a removal order, the applicant had been offered and rejected voluntary departure, there was no sufficient arguable unlawfulness to justify interim relief, and any purported error was technical or academic; accordingly the removal order remained valid and enforceable.