New Zealand: Judicial review cases update - key points

Last Updated: 15 July 2015
Article by Nick Crang

Judicial review cases update key points

Two recent judicial review cases provide helpful guidance on the scope of the ground of unreasonableness and on powers of search and seizure. The first is the very public and controversial challenge to the decision by the Department of Corrections to refuse Scott Watson an interview with a journalist. The second case arose from an investigation into alleged dumping of quota by a fishing company.

Court finds Department unreasonable to deny Watson interview

Watson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2015] NZHC 1227 is one of the rare cases decided solely on the reasonableness ground. Scott Watson, convicted of the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in 1999, requested the interview in order to air his views that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. The Chief Executive refused the request. Mr Watson applied for judicial review.

Mr Watson argued that the decision went beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. He based his argument particularly on his right to freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The judge's decision

The judge agreed, finding it significant that the Chief Executive did not intend to prohibit other modes of communication (such as written correspondence) by which Mr Watson could communicate with the reporter. The judge considered that the adverse effect on the victims, which the Chief Executive by publication of Mr Watson's views sought to avoid, could still occur.

It is unusual for a Court to uphold a judicial review solely on the ground of unreasonableness. Normally, a Court finds unreasonableness only if one of the other grounds of review, unlawfulness or unfairness is made out. In this case, however, the applicant accepted that the decision was made within the correct statutory framework and took into account all the relevant considerations. He also did not claim that it was unfair. The only issue was whether it was unreasonable.

Unreasonableness described, but not defined

The judge started with the strict Wednesdbury irrationality test, but noted that the Courts now adopt a lower standard for unreasonableness. This was articulated as "unreasonable in an administrative law sense". The judge then gave examples of unreasonableness, including cases where the decision-maker had more than one option but reached a decision unsupported by reasoned justifications, or where the decision was highly disproportionate in the way that it weighed competing factors.

The judge recognised the standard admonition against undertaking merits-based review of a decision, but also noted that the merits are relevant where they demonstrate a flaw in the decision-making process itself.

Applying these principles to Mr Watson's situation, the Court held that:

  • Mr Watson had a right to freedom of expression, but that right was not unfettered. It could be restricted, for example, in order to ensure the security and good order of a prison or the interests of victims of crime against further harm.
  • The right to express concerns about an alleged miscarriage of justice is a legitimate exception to these restrictions.
  • The Department did not propose to, and could not, prevent Mr Watson from communicating with the outside world by mail, having visitors and short telephone calls, which were all ways he could communicate his concerns.
  • The decision to prevent Mr Watson interviewing with the reporter would not necessarily achieve the purpose claimed by the Department, calling into question that justification.

The take-outs

Despite the vague terms in which the Court expressed the test for unreasonableness and that the context of each decision remains vitally important, the decision provides useful guidance to decision-makers and to legal counsel advising on proposed decisions. After ensuring that all the other requirements of administrative law are met, it is best to run a further "unreasonableness test". This test should check whether, in practice, a decision will achieve its stated aims, that the impact upon the person concerned is proportionate to the interests it is trying to protect, and that the reasons are clearly stated.

Search and seizure powers upheld

The scope of powers of search and seizure powers was confirmed by the Court in Southern Storm Fishing (2007) v Chief Executive, Ministry of Fisheries [2015] NZAR 816.

The case arose from the exercise by fishery officers of entry and search powers under the Fisheries Act 1996. The powers could be exercised where a fishery officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that an offence has been committed against the Act. No court warrant was required.

The issues in the Court of Appeal were whether the Ministry's treatment of legally privileged material was a defect of a fundamental nature and whether the scope of the search was wider than permitted under the Act.

Limited review of search and seizure powers

The Courts are reluctant to allow judicial review of search warrants or the exercise of search powers, as they usually only occur at an early stage of a criminal investigation, and there are various opportunities to challenge the warrant, the search powers, and/or their execution at later stages. However, judicial review may be permitted where there is a defect of a such a fundamental nature that it affects the jurisdiction of the relevant officer to issue the warrant or exercise the power. An example is where a power of entry fell outside the scope of the statutory powers.

Protection of legal privilege

During the search of Southern Storm's vessel, the Ministry was advised that there were legally privileged documents aboard the vessel and in written and electronic documents seized by the Ministry. Southern Storm claimed that the Ministry did not then take adequate steps to ensure privilege was protected. The Ministry responded that, at most, only a cursory review of the documents was undertaken, which was not a fundamental defect.

While the Court of Appeal found that there was no fundamental defect, it held that the brief review of the privileged documents to see whether they were privileged was breach of privilege. In order to avoid such an effect, the Court suggested that the Ministry could have had Southern Storm's representatives identify the documents, and then have reviewed by an independent barrister and, if necessary, an independent computer expert.

The reasons that there was no fundamental defect were that the Ministry did take some steps to protect privilege and that any breach of privilege was minor. The Court also saw it as significant that other avenues for overturning the search were available to address Southern Storm's concerns, including challenging the admissibility of evidence.

The scope of the search

On the question of the scope of the search, Southern Storm claimed that the Ministry went far beyond its powers, alleging that a secondary purpose of the search was to conduct an audit. This claim arose from a reference in a Ministry document, which was written after the search, to an audit of Southern Storm, and the possibility that some documents seized could be relevant to the audit.

Southern Storm's claim, however, was refuted by notes made by the investigating officer at the time and the operational orders of the Ministry for the search. These documents clearly showed the Ministry's purpose was to investigate possible offences

Helpful points from the case

The case is helpful for two points:

  • Although not overturned on the privilege issue, it provides useful guidance on protocols that could be adopted to ensure that legal privilege is protected during searches, to reduce the risk that evidence is later excluded.
  • It demonstrates the importance of clearly documenting the reasons why the legal tests for conducting a search are met, the purposes of the search, and retaining those documents.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nick Crang
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions