Attorney-General v Television New Zealand Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC CIV 14/04
BETWEENTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Applicant

ANDTELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Respondent

Coram:Gault J
Keith J
Counsel:T Arnold QC and C R Gwyn for Applicant

W Akel for Respondent

Judgment:14 October 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]       After considering the written submissions in support of, and in opposition to this application for leave to appeal, the Court has determined that it is unnecessary to have oral submissions and that leave should be refused.
[2]       The respondent’s application to interview Mr Ahmed Zaoui, who is detained pursuant to a warrant under Part IVA of the Immigration Act, was declined by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. The respondent sought judicial review of that decision. That was refused by Ronald Young J in the High Court but an appeal to the Court of Appeal was successful. The Attorney-General on behalf of the Chief Executive now applies for leave to appeal, seeking to reverse the judgment requiring the Chief Executive to reconsider his decision.
[3]       In support of the application the submissions are, in effect, that the Court of Appeal placed undue weight on the right of freedom of expression and too little on a potential undermining of public confidence in the integrity of the statutory processes by which the security risk certificate giving rise to Mr Zaoui’s detention is to be reviewed.   It is said also that the Court of Appeal did not address one of the reasons for the Chief Executive’s decision that Mr Zaoui has had ample opportunity to tell his story through his counsel. It is submitted that these matters raise issues of general public importance such that it is necessary in the interest of justice that leave be granted.
[4]       The proceeding involves a conventional application for review of an administrative decision. Although important values in the integrity of statutory processes, freedom of expression and national security are involved, the issues are not really directed to matters which are or are not to be taken into account but to the weight to be accorded to them. We are not satisfied that the interests of justice require a further appeal in relation to that.
[5]       We do not read the judgment of the Court of Appeal as reflecting any omission to address the matter of Mr Zaoui’s case being advocated publicly by his advisers.
[6]       Accordingly we are not persuaded that there are issues of principle of general or public importance calling for leave to appeal. Leave is refused.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington
Simpson Grierson, Auckland, for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application for leave to appeal from the Attorney-General against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had overturned a decision of the High Court. The High Court had refused the respondent's application for judicial review of a decision by the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections to decline the respondent's application to interview Mr Ahmed Zaoui, who was detained under a warrant under Part IVA of the Immigration Act. The Court of Appeal had allowed the appeal, ruling that the Chief Executive should reconsider his decision, and the Attorney-General now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues were whether the Court of Appeal had correctly balanced the right to freedom of expression against potential undermining of public confidence in the statutory processes by which Mr Zaoui's detention was to be reviewed, and whether the Court of Appeal had overlooked a reason for the Chief Executive's decision that Mr Zaoui had ample opportunity to tell his story through his counsel. The Attorney-General argued that the Court of Appeal had given undue weight to the right of freedom of expression and too little to the potential undermining of public confidence in the statutory processes, and that the Court of Appeal had failed to address one of the reasons for the Chief Executive's decision.

The Court found that the proceeding involved a conventional application for review of an administrative decision, and that although important values in the integrity of statutory processes, freedom of expression and national security were involved, the issues were not directed to matters which were or were not to be taken into account but to the weight to be accorded to them. The Court did not consider that the interests of justice required a further appeal in relation to that, and was not persuaded that there were issues of principle of general or public importance calling for leave to appeal. The Court did not read the judgment of the Court of Appeal as reflecting any omission to address the matter of Mr Zaoui's case being advocated publicly by his advisers.

Accordingly, the Court refused leave to appeal. No further appeal will be heard in relation to this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established