SC 69/2007
[2007] NZSC 109
BETWEEN ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Appellant
AND X
First Respondent
AND REFUGEE STATUS APPEAL
AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
Court: Elias CJ, Blanchard and Anderson JJ
Counsel: Solicitor-General D B Collins QC, I C Carter and B Keith for Appellant
G M Illingworth QC for First Respondent
Judgment: 14 December 2007
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A Leave to appeal is granted to the appellant.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether s 129T(3)(b) of the
Immigration Act 1987 permits those who are subject to a duty of
confidence under s 129T of that Act to disclose matters that are
confidential in relation to the first respondent to any officer or
employee of a Government department or other Crown agency for
the purpose of the possible extradition of the first respondent to
Rwanda or for the possible prosecution of the first respondent in
New Zealand under the International Crimes and International
Court Act 2000.
C The first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
[1] In the High Court the first respondent sought relief by way of a declaration
and alternatively relief by way of an order setting aside a procedural decision of the
Refugee Status Appeal Authority. The High Court granted a declaration and,
consequentially, the alternative form of relief was not ordered. In the Court of
Appeal the outcome similarly rendered unnecessary a consideration of the alternative
relief.
[2] Now, the first respondent is anxious to revive consideration of his request for
alternative relief in the event that the appellant should succeed on the present appeal.
He accordingly asks this Court to make what would, in effect, be orders for a stay of
the respondent’s hearing before the Refugee Status Appeal Authority.
[3] What consequential procedural orders would be just, in the event that the
appellant succeeds, may have to be considered. However, the issues raised by the
alternative request for relief are, at this stage, merely abstract and it would be
premature to give them consideration without an adequate factual matrix.
[4] The first respondent’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Appellant
Marshall Bird & Curtis, Auckland for First Respondent
Edwards Clark Dickie, Auckland for Second Respondent
==========================================================================================
为尽量避免给当事人造成不良影响，经当事人本人申请110.com将对文章内容进行技术处理，点击查看详情。
==========================================================================================
