O'Neill v Minister of Justice and Human Rights Review Tribunal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 63/2018
[2018] NZSC 80

BETWEEN	CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH O’NEILL Applicant
AND	MINISTER OF JUSTICE First Respondent HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	24 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 18 June 2018, the applicant filed a notice of application for leave to bring a civil appeal. The decisions against which the applicant wished to appeal were described in that application as “The decision of Richard Mark Burton 25 May 2006. The decisions of Fredrick William Monteith McElrea circa 2006/7”.
The named respondents in the application were the Honourable Mr Burton and His Honour Judge McElrea.
The decision of Mr Burton to which reference was made in the application for leave was a decision made by Mr Burton as Minister of Justice appointing Judge McElrea as Deputy Chairperson of the Human Rights Review Tribunal in respect of three proceedings filed with the Tribunal by the applicant in which the then Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Hindle, was the intended defendant.
The decisions of Judge McElrea “circa 2006/7” referred to in the application for leave were decisions of the Tribunal under the chairmanship of Judge McElrea dealing with aspects of the applicant’s proceedings in the Tribunal against Mr Hindle.[1]
[1]Decisions relating to O’Neill v Hindle HRRT 18/05, 44/05 and 04/06.
When the notice of application for leave to appeal was presented to the registry of this Court, the Registrar advised the applicant that neither the decision of the Minister to appoint Judge McElrea nor the decisions of the Tribunal were amenable to appeal to this Court. However the applicant indicated that he wished to persist with his application. In accordance with the approach set out in this Court’s judgment in Slavich v R, the Registrar therefore accepted the notice of application for leave to appeal for filing and referred it to the present panel for decision.[2]
[2]Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195, (2015) 23 PRNZ 117 at [9].
The jurisdiction of this Court is prescribed in legislation, originally the Supreme Court Act 2003 and now the Senior Courts Act 2016. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to hear appeals in civil proceedings is limited to appeals against decisions of the Court of Appeal,[3] High Court,[4] and courts other than the Court of Appeal or High Court to the extent that an enactment provides for the bringing of an appeal against the decision to the Supreme Court.[5]
[3]Supreme Court Act, s 7; Senior Courts Act, s 68.
[4]Supreme Court Act, s 8; Senior Courts Act, s 69.
[5]Supreme Court Act, s 9; Senior Courts Act, s 70.
The decisions against which the applicant wishes to appeal do not come within the jurisdiction of the Court as specified in those sections. As the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals from the decisions against which the applicant wishes to appeal, it cannot grant leave to appeal and the application is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
As the respondents have not been required to respond to the present application, we make no award of costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant, Christopher Joseph O'Neill, sought leave to appeal against decisions made by the Minister of Justice and the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT). The Minister appointed Judge McElrea as Deputy Chairperson of the HRRT, and subsequent decisions made by the HRRT under Judge McElrea's chairmanship were the subject of O'Neill's appeal. The applicant's application was considered against the backdrop of legislation that prescribes the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, specifically the Senior Courts Act 2016, which limits civil appeals to decisions from the Court of Appeal, High Court, or other courts as provided by enactment. The court was required to determine whether the decisions in question fell within its jurisdiction for appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the decisions of the Minister and the HRRT. The court had to examine the nature of the decisions and whether they were amenable to appeal under the provisions of the Senior Courts Act 2016. The court considered that the decision of the Minister to appoint a Deputy Chairperson and the subsequent decisions of the HRRT did not fall within the categories of decisions that the Supreme Court could hear on appeal. As such, the court had to decide whether it could grant leave to appeal in the absence of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court found that the decisions of the Minister and the HRRT were not within its jurisdiction for appeal, as they did not stem from the Court of Appeal, High Court, or other specified courts. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal for want of jurisdiction. The court noted that since the respondents were not required to respond to the application, no costs were awarded. The court's reasoning was based on the clear statutory framework that delineates the types of decisions that can be appealed to the Supreme Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established