Prisoners and Victims Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill
|
|
- Alisha Martin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Prisoners and Victims Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill 3 December 2012 Attorney-General Prisoners and Victims Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill (PCO 16948/1.7) Our Ref: ATT395/140 Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act We have examined the Prisoners and Victims Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill (PCO 16948/1.7) for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act We have concluded that whilst the Bill raises some issues under the Bill of Rights Act, it appears to be consistent with that Act. 2. The Bill amends the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act 2005 by: making permanent the Act s scheme which restricts awards of compensation and provides a victims claims process[1]; expressly providing that the Act applies and has always applied to unlawful detention claims[2]; and suspending the civil limitation period from when compensation is paid to the Secretary of Justice until the deadline for the filing of a victim s claim under the Act (to ensure delays in assessing deductions to not prevent victims from being able to make claims).[3] 3. The Bill raises the following issues under the Bill of Rights Act: 3.1 The Bill removes the expiry provisions introduced as part of the principal Act and extended in 2010 and 2012, making the principal Act permanent. It is therefore necessary to reconsider the consistency of the operative provisions of the principal Act with the right to an effective remedy; 3.2 The Bill clarifies that the principal Act applies and is deemed always to have applied to claims for compensation for unlawful detention that raises a question of possible retrospectivity; and 3.3 The Bill in treating claims by prisoners differently raises a possible issue of discriminatory treatment. 4. In summary we conclude that none of these issues give rise to an inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Act as: 4.1 The principal Act is consistent with the right to an effective remedy. Firstly, the preconditions for awarding damages do not preclude an effective remedy. Damages may be awarded only after reasonable use of complaint mechanisms, but that precondition does
2 not preclude damages where necessary. The requirement that damages may only be awarded after consideration of a range of relevant factors is consistent with the approach adopted by New Zealand courts for the awarding of damages for rights breaches. Secondly, the scheme for deduction of debts due to victims and others does limit the effectiveness of the remedy. It delays prisoners receiving damages that are intended to have a compensatory effect, particularly for the prisoner s pecuniary and intangible losses. However, this limit is justifiable under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Damages awarded under human rights instruments can properly be subject to the same sorts of conditions and restrictions, such as attachment and set-off, as any other civil claim. 4.2 To the extent the amendments in the Bill relating to unlawful detention claims may have a retrospective effect, no issue arises under s 26 of the Bill of Right Act. That only protects against retrospectivity in relation to criminal offences and penalties. 4.3 The differential treatment of prisoners does not raise any issue with s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act as status as a prisoner is not a prohibited ground of discrimination. Consistency of the principal Act with the right to an effective remedy 5. The Bill raises an issue with the right to an effective remedy for breaches of the Bill of Rights in that it makes permanent the Act s scheme which restricts awards of compensation, delays awards to allow victims claims and allows deduction of certain of the prisoner s other civil debts, including those arising from the victims claims process.[4] That scheme affects the award and receipt of damages for breaches of the Bill of Rights Act (and other specified rights[5]) to prisoners and other persons subject to sentences for criminal offending in the following ways: 5.1 Damages for breach of the Bill of Rights Act may only be awarded if the court or tribunal is satisfied that the prisoner has first made reasonable use of reasonably available internal and external complaints mechanisms and, that there are no other remedies which can provide the prisoner with effective redress.[6] Further, damages may be awarded only after consideration of a range of relevant factors.[7] 5.2 Compensation is subject to deductions of debts and inchoate claims, and receipt of compensation is delayed pending any such claims.[8] Damages that would otherwise have been paid to prisoners must instead be paid to the Secretary for Justice. Such amounts are then applied to satisfy: the prisoner s obligations to repay legal aid; orders for reparation imposed upon the prisoner at the time of sentence; and any outstanding amounts owed to the prisoner s victims who have already obtained awards from the Victims Special Claims Tribunal. Any residual funds will ordinarily be held in trust for at least six months, to enable other victims to make claims through the Tribunal using a simplified claims procedure.[9] 6. The Bill of Rights Act does not make any express provision as to remedy. In Baigent s Case[10] it was held to include a right to an effective remedy for interference with it and that it is for the courts to fashion the most effective remedy in the particular circumstances of the case.[11] The form of an effective remedy may be subject to legislative modification and restrictions upon the availability of compensation as a remedy have been upheld.[12] In
3 Taunoa v Attorney-General, the Supreme Court confirmed that rights breaches should be redressed by the provision of effective, appropriate and proportionate remedies. A majority of the Court assigned the remedy of Bill of Rights Act damages a residual role, to be awarded only (where necessary) as the final component of an effective Bill of Rights Act remedy.[13] New Zealand courts have stressed the effectiveness of declarations as Bill of Rights Act remedies. [14] 7. New Zealand and international case law is to the effect that awarding damages for rights breaches serves at least three inter-related purposes: 7.1 Vindicating the right: That is, publicly affirming the importance of rights by marking their breach and ensuring that they are not whittled away by attrition. It recognises that each breach harms the state and society more generally because it impairs public confidence in the government s observance of rights. [15] 7.2 Deterring further breaches by other state actors in the future: By imposing a financial penalty on the government entity which has breached rights on this occasion, a court or tribunal hopes to influence the behaviour of all government entities to accord greater respect to rights in the future.[16] 7.3 Compensating the plaintiff: That is, remedying the loss suffered by the victim of the breach. This may include physical, psychological and/or pecuniary (ie economic) loss, as well as harm to intangible interests (eg distress, humiliation, embarrassment and anxiety).[17] So far as possible, the victim should be placed in the same position as if the breach had not occurred.[18] In New Zealand there is no compensatory role in cases of personal injury, as accident compensation legislation provides an effective remedy for compensating personal injuries. [19] 8. In Taunoa, the Supreme Court affirmed that the main goals of the remedy of damages for rights breaches were: vindication;[20] deterrence from future rights breaches;[21] and denouncement of the breach to mark society s disapproval of the breach of rights in issue.[22] At least two judges were of the view the compensatory role of making amends to the victim of a breach was only a secondary or subsidiary function of public law damages.[23] No unjustifiable limit on right to an effective remedy 9. Applying these principles to the Bill, there is no limit on the right to an effective remedy by the preconditions for the award of damages. Damages may be awarded only after the prisoner has made reasonable use of reasonably available complaints mechanisms, but that precondition does not preclude damages where no other effective redress is available.[24] Further, the requirement for a court considering a damages award to have regard a range of relevant factors simply codifies the approach adopted by courts to the awarding of damages for rights breach (as discussed above), that they are a remedy of last resort, but remain available when necessary to give the victim an effective remedy.
4 10. The deduction of debts due to the Crown (ie legal aid) and to compensate victims appears consistent with the right to an effective remedy: 10.1 Any impact upon the vindication and deterrence objectives of damages is marginal and does not meaningfully impair their effectiveness as a remedy. Because the Crown and victims may obtain some of the fruits of the prisoner s damages award, the impact of the court or tribunal s denouncement of the Crown s conduct could be said to be diminished, and its deterrent effect minimised. However, the damages award still stands as a clear indication of the judiciary s disapprobation of rights breaches. And even if an award is seen to be diverted towards more worthy causes, it will still be a net cost to the Crown as defendant and an involuntary and public deduction from the breaching entity s revenue, which can be expected to have some salutary effect; 10.2 Nor does it limit the effectiveness of the compensatory purpose of the remedy per se in light of the fact that the diminution of the award of damages is as a result of the prisoner s own liabilities, which exist as a result of that person s conduct, and is used to satisfy debts which the prisoner could at least in principle have been required to satisfy anyway.[25] Prisoners may ultimately receive an amount of damages which is less than what a court or tribunal has found is required to return them to the position they were in prior to the rights breach. However, this result is not because of any ineffectiveness of the remedy per se. Rather, it is because the prisoner has incurred other debts (legal aid, reparation orders imposed at sentence and extant or inchoate civil liabilities to their victims), the deduction of which is facilitated by the PVC Act but which could be claimed by way of attachment and set-off in any case. 11. Further, to the extent that the issue of deductions has been judicially considered, the deduction of an individual s debts from damages awarded is not regarded as inconsistent with the right to an effective remedy. The issue has not been directly considered in New Zealand. The issue has had limited consideration under the European Convention on Human Rights. While in an early case, the European Court of Human Rights ordered that an award of damages be made free from attachment of unrelated civil debts,[26] and that Court has continued to describe any deduction or attachment as incongruous, the position is now settled that it is open to Convention states to permit such deductions.[27] The same broad conclusion may be drawn from dicta in New Zealand and other jurisdictions that damages awards under human rights instruments can properly be subjected to the same sorts of reasonable conditions and restrictions as any other civil claim.[28] 12. That said the effectiveness of the compensation objective of the damages remedy is limited by the delay that prisoners experience in receiving damages meant to restore them to their pre-breach position. The losses suffered by and harm done to a prisoner will go uncompensated for some months. Whilst the physical and psychological impacts upon the prisoner are deemed by virtue of the accident compensation scheme and the bar upon compensatory awards for personal injury to be addressed by public health care and by ACC, the delay in receiving an award for pecuniary losses and intangible harms means that the economic and emotional recovery of a victim of a rights breach will be delayed by at least six months pending victims claims. The effectiveness of the remedy is diminished accordingly.[29]
5 13. This limit is justifiable under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act for the following reasons. The objective of the scheme is to provide a prisoner s victims a meaningful opportunity to recoup some of their own losses by making a claim on the funds made available through a damages award before that prisoner has an opportunity to dissipate them.[30] In light of the rarity of claims by victims of offending and the attendant practical difficulties of pursuing and enforcing such claims otherwise, giving victims this opportunity for redress serves another important governmental purpose (ie supporting victims of crime to recover) which is also recognised by the international community.[31] In addition, the delay is not unreasonably long, when viewed in the context that any victim of a rights breach who would necessarily experience some delay in obtaining damages for that breach. Further, damages awards under human rights instruments can properly be subject to the same sorts of conditions and restrictions, such as attachment and set-off, as any other civil claim. Other issues considered Retrospectivity 14. To the extent the amendments in the Bill that expressly provide that the Act applies and has always applied to unlawful detention claim[32] have any retrospective effect, no issue arises in respect of consistency with s 26 of the Bill of Rights Act. That only protects against retrospectivity in relation to criminal offences and penalties. Differential treatment of prisoners 15. The differential treatment of prisoners does not raise issues of discrimination contrary to s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act and/or the Human Rights Act 1993, as status as a prisoner is not a prohibited ground of discrimination.[33] We note however that this differential treatment of prisoners may be a breach of Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). That provides states must respect and ensure to all individuals the ICCPR rights without distinction of any kind, including other status, which is likely to include status as a prisoner.[34] 16. We also observe that article 14(1) of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment provides that states must ensure that torture victims obtain redress and have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation. No direct issue of inconsistency arises as New Zealand has entered a reservation to art 14 to the effect that it reserves the right to award compensation to victims of torture only at the Attorney-General s discretion, as provided for under the Crimes of Torture Act However, the Committee against Torture has expressed concern over the PVC Act in its most recent periodic review.[35] Yours sincerely Crown Law Jane Foster Daniel Perkins
6 Crown Counsel Associate Crown Counsel Bookmarks 1. Clauses 4(a),(b), 5, 9 and Clauses 4(c),(d), 6, 7 and Clauses 4(e) and We note that courts which have been called upon to consider the application of the PVC Act have not given any indication that they regard the Act as potentially inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. In Edgecombe v Attorney-General [2005] DCR 780; Firmin v Attorney-General HC Christchurch CIV (15 February 2007) and Reekie v Attorney-General [2012] NZHC 1867, no damages awards were made. In Forrest v Attorney-General [2012] NZAR 798 (CA) a prisoner was awarded $600 for an unlawful strip search in breach of s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. 5. See s 6 definition of specified claims of the Crown to which the Act applies. 6. PVC Act s PVC Act, s PVC Act Subpart 2 of Part 2, this applies to court awarded damages and out-of-court settlements. 9. Whilst such claims could ordinarily have been brought through the ordinarily civil justice system, the PVC Act offers a fast-track for resolution of these claims by the Tribunal. 10. Simpson v Attorney-General (Baigent s Case) [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (CA). The Court was influenced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 999 UNTS 171 (opened for signature 19 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), art 2(3)(a). In addition, ICCPR arts 9(5) and 14(6), and the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment or Treatment 1465 UNTS 85 (opened for signature 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987), art 14, are also relevant. However, New Zealand has entered reservations against: ICCPR art 14(6) to the effect that it reserves the right not to apply art 14(6) to the extent that it is not satisfied by the existing system for ex gratia payments to persons who suffer as a result of a miscarriage of justice ; and CAT art 14 to the effect that it reserves the right to award compensation to victims of torture only at the Attorney-General s discretion. 11. Note however that the Bill of Rights Act does not protect a right to an effective remedy for interferences with privacy or tortious conduct which is not also inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act. 12. Wilding v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 787 (CA) at [14]ff; Dunlea v Attorney- General [2000] 3 NZLR 136 (CA); Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110; [2012] 1 NZLR 463
7 13. Taunoa v Attorney-General [2008] 1 NZLR 429 (SC) at [258], [373], [300], [305], [327] (per Tipping J, noting that the remedial question will often be whether Bill of Rights Act damages must be added to a declaration to provide an effective remedy). 14. As publicly identifying the breach (see Manga v Attorney-General [2000] 2 NZLR 65 (HC) at [133]), warning of more significant consequences for future non-compliance (see Taunoa at [255]) and condemning the government s deviation from a rights standard, and promoting political accountability by increasing the chances that the matter will be brought to Parliament s attention (see Du v District Court at Auckland [2006] NZAR 341 (HC) at [74].) 15. See Taunoa at [109], [255], [317], and Vancouver (City) v Ward [2010] 2 SCR 28 at [25], [28]. 16. See Taunoa at [255], [258], [320] and Ward at [29]. 17. Ward at [27]. See also Baigent s Case at p 678; Taunoa at [109], [234], [322]. 18. Ward at [49]. 19. Wilding v Attorney-General [2003] 3 NZLR 787 at [11], [14] [15]; Taunoa at [322]. 20. Taunoa at [106], [253], [300], [366], [385]. 21. Ibid at [109] and fn 187, [253], [258], [366], [368], [369], [373]; cf the criticism of Tipping J at [318] [320]. 22. Ibid at [253], [255], [259], [261], [300], [318]. 23. Ibid, Blanchard J at [259], McGrath J at [373] and Henry J agreeing with both Blanchard and Tipping JJ on the proper judicial approach to Bill of Rights remedies at [385]. Elias CJ at [109], [111] and Tipping J at [317] [318] were supportive of a primary compensatory role for Bill of Rights Act remedies. 24. Section 13(1) 25. This is an important distinction between the PVC Act and the Prisoners and Victims Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Bill, which would have acquired the prisoner s property (the residual damages) by reason of their status as a prisoner and redirected it for general (albeit victim-related) governmental purposes rather than applying it to satisfy some of the prisoner s own debts, before passing any residue on to them. 26. See, eg, Ringeisen v Austria (Interpretation of the judgment of 22 June 1972) (2614/65) Court (Chamber), ECHR 23 June See the cases cited in Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Monitoring of the payment of sums awarded by way of just satisfaction: An overview of the Committee s present practice CM/Inf/DH(2008)7 final at fns 116, and M Pellonpää Individual Reparation Claims under the European Convention on Human Rights in A Randelzhofer & Christian Tomuschat (eds) State Responsibility and the Individual: Reparation in Instances of Grave Violation of Human Rights (1999) 109, 128 (concluding that Contracting parties [to the European Convention on Human Rights] are free, subject to their own laws, to allow attachment by private creditors ). 28. See, for example, Wilding v Attorney-General (ACC statutory bar bearing on compensation awards), and also see, eg, P F Sugrue Ltd v Attorney-General [2004] 1 NZLR 207; Pearson v Canada [2006] FCJ 1175 and Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (all accepting limitation periods and/or delay as factor affecting right to compensation),
8 29. In the context of the Bill of Rights Act right to be free from torture and cruel treatment, the United Nations Committee against Torture has recently emphasised that the rehabilitative component of damages may not be postponed (arguably referring not just to physical and psychological rehabilitation, but also to emotional rehabilitation) and that states should minimise hardship to complainants and avoid impediments to their ability to obtain redress: see General Comment No 3: Implementation of Article 14 by States Parties CAT/C/GC/3 (2012) at [12], [29], [39]. However, we note that New Zealand has entered a reservation to art 14 to the effect that it reserves the right to award compensation to victims of torture only at the Attorney-General s discretion. Whilst this reservation effectively disapplies art 14 in respect of New Zealand, the Committee s comments are nonetheless relevant to the broader question of the content of an effective remedy. 30. We put to one side the deductions for legal aid repayments and to satisfy reparation orders. These deductions could be made quickly and the residual passed on to the prisoner without the need for the six-month delay. The sole rationale for the delay is to facilitate the prisoner s victims having a reasonable opportunity to make a claim to the funds. 31. See, eg, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power GA Res 40/34, A/Res/40/34 (1985) at [4] [5]. 32. Clauses 4(c),(d), 6, 7 and The prohibited grounds are enumerated in s 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993: sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, age, disability, political opinion, employment status, family status and sexual orientation. 34. See, eg, Clift v United Kingdom (7205/07) Section IV, ECHR 13 July 2010 at [55] [63]. 35. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment CAT/C/NZL/5 (2007) In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this website, please note the following: This advice was prepared to assist the Attorney-General to determine whether a report should be made to Parliament under s 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in relation to the Prisoners and Victims Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. It should not be used or acted upon for any other purpose. The advice does no more than assess whether the Bill complies with the minimum guarantees contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The release of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissions.
Bail Amendment Bill 2012
Bail Amendment Bill 2012 4 May 2012 Attorney-General Bail Amendment Bill 2012 PCO15616 (v6.2) Our Ref: ATT395/171 1. I have reviewed this Bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
More informationLEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: FREEDOM CAMPING BILL
Freedom Camping Bill 10 May 2011 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: FREEDOM CAMPING BILL 1. We have considered whether the Freedom Camping Bill (PCO
More informationImmigration Amendment Bill (No.2)
Immigration Amendment Bill (No.2) 22 August, 2003 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE IMMIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2): CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 INTRODUCTION 1. We have considered
More informationDECISION IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 102 Reference No: IACDT 11/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationElectoral Amendment Bill
Electoral Amendment Bill 5 February 2009 Attorney-General Electoral Amendment Bill: Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 Our Ref: ATT395/95 1. I have reviewed the Electoral Amendment
More informationElectoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 19 April 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill (PCO 14213/9.0): Consistency with the New Zealand
More informationBiosecurity Law Reform Bill
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill 15 November 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: BIOSECURITY LAW REFORM BILL 1. We have considered whether the Biosecurity
More informationPART 2: THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice System
PART 2: THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Chapter 2: The Human Rights Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice System Outline 2.1 Introduction 2.2 The European Convention on Human Rights the essential background
More informationChapter 15 Protection and redress for victims of crime and human rights violations
in cooperation with the Chapter 15 Protection and redress for victims of crime and human rights violations Facilitator s Guide Learning objectives To make the participants aware of the effects that crime
More informationUnited Nations Convention against Torture: New Zealand s sixth periodic review, 2015 shadow report
13 February 2015 Secretariat of the Committee against Torture United Nations Office at Geneva Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) CH-1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland cat@ohchr.org United
More informationFoster: Q&A Human Rights and Civil Liberties
Chapter 4 HRA Question 1 To what extent did English law recognize human rights and civil liberties before the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998? Why was this traditional method regarded as unsatisfactory
More informationCHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 INTRODUCTION
110 CHAPTER 4 NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990 AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 Background INTRODUCTION The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (Bill of Rights Act) affirms a range of civil and political rights.
More informationThe Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector. Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered
The Non-Discrimination Standards for Government and the Public Sector Guidelines on how to apply the standards and who is covered March 2002 Table Of Contents INTRODUCTION... 4 WHAT IS THE AIM OF THESE
More informationTaxation (Annual Rates for , Research and Development, and Remedial Matters) Bill
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2015-16, Research and Development, and Remedial Matters) Bill 13 February 2015 Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights
More informationDRAFT FOR CONSULTATION
DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION Incorporated Societies Bill Government Bill [To come] Explanatory note Consultation draft Hon Paul Goldsmith Incorporated Societies Bill Government Bill Contents Page 1 Title 9
More informationCHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant. ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent. Randerson, Harrison and Miller JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA754/2012 [2014] NZCA 37 BETWEEN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Appellant ALAVINE FELIUIA LIU Respondent Hearing: 5 February
More informationVictims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996
Victims Support and Rehabilitation Act 1996 As in force at 18 January 2002 Long Title An Act to provide support and rehabilitation for victims of violence; and to repeal the Victims Compensation Act 1987.
More informationLimitation of Actions Amendment (Criminal Child Abuse) Bill 2014 Exposure Draft
Limitation of Actions Amendment (Criminal Child Abuse) Bill 2014 Exposure Draft Submission Contact: Laura Helm, Lawyer, Administrative Law and Human Rights Section T 03 9607 9380 F 03 9602 5270 lhelm@liv.asn.au
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV [2017] NZHC NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV-2015-404-2800 [2017] NZHC 2865 BETWEEN AND NICHOLAS DAVID WRIGHT Plaintiff ATTORNEY-GENERAL AS REPRESENTATIVE
More informationAppellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:
More informationConsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Conservation (Infringement System) Bill
LEGAL ADVICE LPA 01 01 21 1 February 2017 Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Conservation (Infringement System) Bill Purpose 1. We
More informationMANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?
MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES: HANDCUFFING THE PRISONER OR THE JUDGE?.THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE SO FAR American Judges Association, Annual Educational Conference October 7, 2014 Las Vegas, Nevada Judge Catherine
More informationConsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill
LEGAL ADVICE LPA 01 01 21 24 November 2016 Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki)
More informationFiji Comments on the Discussion Paper on implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 1 1. Incorporating crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court... 2 (a) genocide... 2 (b) crimes against humanity... 2 (c) war crimes... 3 (d) Implementing other crimes
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HUMAN RIGHTS & PRIVACY COMMITTEE SUBMISSION TO THE 18 TH SESSION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL SHADOW REPORT TO NEW ZEALAND S 2 ND UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW Submission to the United
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01903 Licensed Building Practitioner: Paul Kravenko (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 128172 Licence(s) Held: Bricklaying and Blocklaying
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24832 Licensed Building Practitioner: Roshan Anthony (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 101349 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the Board
More informationCONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ACT NO 108 OF 1996
SOUTH AFRICA LTD: HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGAL REGISTER Document Number: MR023 REVISION No.: 0 Page 1 of 7 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA ACT NO 108 OF 1996 CONTENTS CLICK ON PAGE NUMBER TO GO
More informationCONCERNING CONCERNING. MR PAIGNTON of Auckland DECISION
LCRO 222/09 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 2 BETWEEN MR BALTASOUND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 849. Appellant. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY CIV 2014-454-121 [2016] NZHC 849 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 TANIA JOY LAMB Appellant THE
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01904 Licensed Building Practitioner: Rajendra Krishna (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 112034 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the
More informationClimate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill
Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill 9 November 2007 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (EMISSIONS TRADING)
More informationCHAPTER 2 BILL OF RIGHTS
7. Rights CHAPTER 2 BILL OF RIGHTS (1) This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human
More informationReport of the Republic of El Salvador pursuant to United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/103
-1- Translated from Spanish Report of the Republic of El Salvador pursuant to United Nations General Assembly resolution 66/103 The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction With
More informationBefore the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB Licence(s) Held: Carpentry and Site AOP 1
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. CB24522 Licensed Building Practitioner: Sheng Yuan Lin (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 108707 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry and Site AOP 1 Decision
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS CHAPTER 2 OF CONSTITUTION OF RSA NO SOUTH AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS
7. Rights SOUTH AFRICAN BILL OF RIGHTS 1. This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human
More informationLEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
12 MARCH 2010 ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL 1. We have considered whether the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill ( the
More informationThis publication is produced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of
This publication is produced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
More informationConsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Bill
LEGAL ADVICE LPA 01 01 21 7 September 2016 Hon Christopher Finlayson QC, Attorney-General Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Outer Space and High Altitude Activities Bill Purpose
More informationLegal tools to protect children
Critical issue module 1 Abuse and exploitation Topic 2 The law and child rights Handout 2 Legal tools to protect children The CRC accords all children, regardless of their legal status, the right to be
More informationHARMFUL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS BILL
16 December 2013 The Secretary Justice and Electoral Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington Dear Secretary HARMFUL DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS BILL The Human Rights Commission ( the Commission ) welcomes
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC 923. LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-404-000039 [2015] NZHC 923 BETWEEN AND LEE RUTH ANDERSON Applicant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2015 Appearances: D Schellenberg
More informationINHUMAN SENTENCING OF CHILDREN IN SWAZILAND
CAMPAIGN REPORT INHUMAN SENTENCING OF CHILDREN IN SWAZILAND Summary When the Children s Protection and Welfare Act came into force in July 2013, 1 it implemented wide reaching reforms of the juvenile justice
More informationHousing and Planning Act Civil Penalties
Housing and Planning Act 2016 Civil Penalties Financial penalties as an alternative to prosecution Introduction In this document, the term landlord also includes to owner, property agent, managing agent,
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 208 CRC 14/14. Defendant. Plaintiff HARLENE HAYNE, VICE-
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2014] NZEmpC 208 CRC 14/14 challenges to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority HARLENE HAYNE, VICE- CHANCELLOR OF THE
More informationHUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW GAMBIAN GOVERNMENT
Index: AFR 27/6123/2017 28 April 2017 HUMAN RIGHTS PRIORITIES FOR THE NEW GAMBIAN GOVERNMENT 1. GUARANTEE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION a) Urgently repeal and bring in conformity with international and regional
More information1.4 This code does not attempt to replace the law. The University therefore reserves the right to refer some matters to the police (see section 4).
Code of Discipline for Students and Disciplinary Procedures 1. Overview 1.1 The University exists primarily to provide higher education, to carry out research and to provide the facilities and resources
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132. MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132 BETWEEN JIAXI GUO First Appellant JIAMING GUO Second Appellant AND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Court: Counsel:
More informationParliamentary Research Branch HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE. Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division
Mini-Review MR-102E HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND THE CHARTER: A COMPARATIVE GUIDE Nancy Holmes Law and Government Division 13 October 1992 Revised 18 September 1997 Library of Parliament Bibliothèque du
More informationList of issues prior to submission of the seventh periodic report of New Zealand*
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 9 June 2017 CAT/C/NZL/QPR/7 Original: English English, French and Spanish only Committee
More informationThe Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 15.b of the Statute of the Council of Europe,
Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe Probation Rules (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 2010 at the 1075th meeting of the
More informationDecision of the Board in Respect of the Conduct of a Licensed Building Practitioner Under section 315 of the Building Act 2004
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01565 Licensed Building Practitioner: Satish Chand (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 113469 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the Board
More informationResolution adopted by the General Assembly. [on the report of the Third Committee (A/65/456/Add.2 (Part II))]
United Nations A/RES/65/221 General Assembly Distr.: General 5 April 2011 Sixty-fifth session Agenda item 68 (b) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly [on the report of the Third Committee (A/65/456/Add.2
More informationVOLUNTARY REGISTER OF DRIVING INSTRUCTORS GOVERNING POLICY
VOLUNTARY REGISTER OF DRIVING INSTRUCTORS GOVERNING POLICY 1 Introduction 1.1 In December 2014, the States approved the introduction of a mandatory Register of Driving Instructors, and the introduction
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC Plaintiff. THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2012-404-6717 [2013] NZHC 2580 UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 BETWEEN AND AND MARGARET SPENCER Plaintiff HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY- GENERAL
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZLCDT 34 LCDT 007/16. of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZLCDT 34 LCDT 007/16 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WAIKATO BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 2 Applicant
More informationInternational Human Rights Law and Fatal Foetal Abnormalities Presentation to the Citizens Assembly, 7January 2017
International Human Rights Law and Fatal Foetal Abnormalities Presentation to the Citizens Assembly, 7January 2017 Dr Noelle Higgins, Senior Lecturer in Law, Maynooth University 1 Table of Contents 1.
More information- 2 - ii. It is a subsidiary of an entity that is a subsidiary of that Entity. 3. Office of the Extractive Industries Human Rights Ombudsperson
The Global Leadership in Business and Human Rights Act: An act to create an independent human rights ombudsperson for the international extractive sector Draft model legislation, November 2, 2016 Commissioned
More informationCHAPTER 383 HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS PART I PRELIMINARY
CHAPTER 383 HONG KONG BILL OF RIGHTS An Ordinance to provide for the incorporation into the law of Hong Kong of provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as applied to Hong
More informationBravehearts Position Statement
Response to proposed NSW Victims Rights and Support Bill 2013 Bravehearts wish to outline our deep concerns with certain elements of the proposed NSW Victims Rights and Support Bill 2013 as it applies
More informationINTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS
INTERNATIONAL DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF JOURNALISTS The following document aims at highlighting core principles related to the protection of journalists, taking into account the respective responsibilities
More informationCastan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University Melbourne
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law Monash University Melbourne Submission to the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations Relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in
More informationHousing Act 1996, Part 7
1 Housing Act 1996, Part 7 As it would read if the Homelessness Reduction Bill as introduced to the House of Lords on 30 January 2017 is enacted without further amendment. Black text = currently in force
More informationTHE ARMS TRADE TREATY AND
All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee for advocacy, campaigning and teaching purposes, but not for resale. The copyright holders request that
More informationUNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS KEY DATES
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS KEY DATES AI INDEX: ACT 30/023/2008 DATE: 1 ST DECEMBER 2008 1948 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations 1951
More informationResponsibilities. Enforcing Rights: The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and KIRSTY CHAMPION
Enforcing Rights: The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities KIRSTY CHAMPION On the first of January 2007, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities1 came into effect in Victoria.2
More informationProposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative approach to the flow of asylum seekers into and within the Asia-Pacific region
Proposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative approach to the flow of asylum seekers into and within the Asia-Pacific region Table of Contents Proposal for Australia s role in a regional cooperative
More informationSubmission on the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill
11 April 2018 Committee Secretariat Governance and Administration Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington Email: ga@parliament.govt.nz Submission on the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill The
More informationRICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant. VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH MENʼS PRISON First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE CIV-2018-409-000212 [2018] NZHC 1457 BETWEEN AND AND AND RICHARD LYALL GENGE Applicant VISITING JUSTICE CHRISTCHURCH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI [2015] NZHC Appellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent JUDGMENT OF CLIFFORD J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CRI-2015-485-17 [2015] NZHC 2235 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2015 Counsel: A Shaw for Appellant
More informationInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 Adopted 16 December 1966 Entered into force 23 March 1976
Selected Provisions Article 2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 Adopted 16 December 1966 Entered into force 23 March 1976 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to
More information21. Creating criminal offences
21. Creating criminal offences Criminal offences are the most serious form of sanction that can be imposed under law. They are one of a variety of alternative mechanisms for achieving compliance with legislation
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N v RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL Hearing: 1-4 March 2004 Appearances: Mr Crayton for the Crown Mr Pyke for the Prisoner Judgment: 6 April 2004
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON CRI CRI [2017] NZDC COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON CRI-2017-085-001139 CRI-2017-085-001454 [2017] NZDC 18584 BETWEEN AND DAVID HUGH CHORD ALLAN KENDRICK DEAN Appellants COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondent Hearing: 15 August
More informationList of issues prior to submission of the seventh periodic report of New Zealand *
Committee against Torture List of issues prior to submission of the seventh periodic report of New Zealand * ADVANCE UNEDITED VERSION Specific information on the implementation of articles 1 to 16 of the
More informationConvention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
UNITED NATIONS CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr. GENERAL 17 August 2005 Original: ENGLISH COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS
More informationImmigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR
Immigration Enforcement Immigration Act 2014 Article 8 ECHR Presented by Criminality Policy Team 2) Aims and Objectives Aim to explain the new Article 8 provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum
More informationEconomic and Social Council
UNITED NATIONS E Economic and Social Council Distr. GENERAL E/CN.4/2000/62 18 January 2000 Original: ENGLISH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Fifty-sixth session Item 11 (d) of the provisional agenda CIVIL AND
More informationVOLKSTAAT COUNCIL THE NATURE AND APPLICATION OF A BILL OF RIGHTS
VOLKSTAAT COUNCIL THE NATURE AND APPLICATION OF A BILL OF RIGHTS 1) A bill of fundamental rights must provide for the diversity of rights arising within a multinational society. 2) Within the multi-national
More informationVictims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37
New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part
More informationResolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 29 September /16. Human rights in the administration of justice, including juvenile justice
United Nations General Assembly Distr.: General 9 October 2017 A/HRC/RES/36/16 Original: English Human Rights Council Thirty-sixth session 11 29 September 2017 Agenda item 3 Resolution adopted by the Human
More informationRelevant instruments in the field of justice for children
Relevant instruments in the field of justice for children Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
More informationIntroduction. I - General remarks: Paragraph 5
Comments on the draft of General Comment No. 35 on Article 9 of the ICCPR on the right to liberty and security of person and freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention This submission represents the views
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
4.11.2016 L 297/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/1919 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings
More informationGeneral Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture 1
General Recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on torture 1 (a) Countries that are not party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and its Optional
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17 UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN HAWKE S BAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE Applicant AND KRIS ANTHONY DENDER
More informationREPORT FORM PROTOCOL OF 2014 TO THE FORCED LABOUR CONVENTION, 1930
Appl. 22. P.29 Protocol of 2014 to the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE REPORT FORM FOR THE PROTOCOL OF 2014 TO THE FORCED LABOUR CONVENTION, 1930 The present report form is for
More information2007 Mental Health No.5 SAMOA
2007 Mental Health No.5 SAMOA Arrangement of Provisions PART l PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Objectives 4. Application PART 2 VOLUNTARY CARE, SUPPORT AND TREATMENT WITHIN
More informationSOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PROTOCOL ON EXTRADITION TABLE OF CONTENTS:
SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY PROTOCOL ON EXTRADITION TABLE OF CONTENTS: PREAMBLE ARTICLE 1: DEFINITIONS ARTICLE 2: OBLIGATION TO EXTRADITE ARTICLE 3: EXTRADITABLE OFFENCES ARTICLE 4: MANDATORY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-4141 [2015] NZHC 1706 BETWEEN ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR First Applicant HINEMANU NGARONOA, SANDRA WILDE, KIRSTY OLIVIA FENSOM and CLAIRE THRUPP
More informationMAGISTRATES AND PROSECUTORS VIEWS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
CHAPTER 5 MAGISTRATES AND PROSECUTORS VIEWS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Beaty Naudé and Johan Prinsloo The success of the restorative justice approach depends not only on the support of the victims and offenders
More informationDecision of the Board in Respect of the Conduct of a Licensed Building Practitioner Under section 315 of the Building Act 2004
Before the Building Practitioners Board BPB Complaint No. C2-01498 Licensed Building Practitioner: Juan Walters (the Respondent) Licence Number: BP 127095 Licence(s) Held: Carpentry Decision of the Board
More informationPrisons and Courts Bill
EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Ministry of Justice, are published separately as Bill 14 EN. EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Secretary Elizabeth Truss has made the
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 38 Taitokerau MB 219 (38 TTK 219) A Applicant
IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 38 Taitokerau MB 219 (38 TTK 219) A20050019948 UNDER Section 18(1)(c) Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Waipoua 2B2B1B BETWEEN AND
More informationJUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE
JUDICIAL REVIEW REFORMS UPDATE Zahra Al-Rikabi Brick Court Chambers 13 October 2014 The Spectator, 8 June 2013 Judicial Review proposals for reform 13 December 2012 Reduced time limits Planning six weeks
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368. Appellant. SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA553/2010 [2011] NZCA 368 BETWEEN AND ASB BANK LIMITED Appellant SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 22 June 2011 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Randerson,
More informationDilipkumar Prajapati. Apurva Khetarpal DECISION (IMPOSING SANCTIONS)
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2016] NZIACDT 23 Reference No: IACDT 023/14 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 220 ARC 19/11. Plaintiff. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2012] NZEmpC 220 ARC 19/11 proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority JOHN MATSUOKA Plaintiff LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
More informationConsideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 19 of the Convention. Concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Distr.: General 26 June 2012 Original: English CAT/C/ALB/CO/2 Committee against Torture Forty-eighth
More information