Issue: New Zealand Judges are not required to give reasons for decisions. (Case law below)T
The Impact: Without legislation that New Zealand Judges must give reasons for decisions-
- An effective "Right of Appeal" is not guaranteed. What will
be the ground of appeal against a determination not supported by reason?
- New Zealand's commitment to the rule of
law and the sovereignty of Parliament comes into question.
Leave a message to let Kiwis know we care:
Leave a message View messages
|Name: ||Sandy Chandra |
|Country: ||London (Eng), Dunedin (NZ) |
|Message: ||Goes without saying really... If New Zealand's democracy is to be respected, then it's really not a question of deserving,
it should be so be default. It's one of those unwritten rules!|
||Lord Hewet put it succinctly when he said,
"… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not
only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." The absence of
any reasoning in a judge's decision raises doubts as to partiality, particularly when the case is of a controversial
|Name: ||kaiparameinana lawful sovereign being Tangata-whenua |
||Te ika-a-maui, Aotearoa, Tuhua, Te Wai pounamu, Raki-ura
||how can you have a fair hearing in NEW ZEALAND
courts when NEW ZEALAND does not have a single written constitutional document, if there is no constitution
there is no law, so what is left is lawlessness now it is assumption and a legal systom that runs contary
Leave a message - join others
who care from countries including Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand.
|Kim Birkenfeld taking a break. December 2009
|Grounds of Parliament, Wellington, New Zealand
Clarified issue that Judges are not required to give reasons.
Jan. 2009 Application for Leave to Bring Appeal filed
in Supreme Court of New Zealand - Issue: Right to reasons for judicial
decisions based on ICCPR 14(1).
Outcome: The Court denied the Appellant right to contradict new issues raised by Respondents and dismissed
Effect: The Supreme Court avoided the issue of right to reasons.
- Will New Zealanders wait another 27 years for the issue to appear before
the court, or will Parliament wake up and legislate that judges in New Zealand be required to give reasons?
Right to Reasons for Judicial Decisions in Comparable
The judgment must contain reasons for the decision on matters of both fact and law. *
The European Court of Human Rights: ...reiterates
that Article 6 para 1 (ECHR 1953) obliges courts to give reasons for their judgments...**
England and Wales: The right to fair trial provisions
of Article 6, Schedule 1, Human Rights Act 1998, are interpreted as requiring reasons to be given for final judgments.***
In 1999, the Privy Council in London interpreted
common law as requiring that reasons be given for administrative decisions - in addition to judicial decisions.
Case law: Stefan v GMC  1 W.L.R. 1293 (PC).
* Grubbs, (ed), International Civil Procedure
** Plowden & Kerrigan, Advocacy
and Human Rights (2002) p. 410.
*** Grubbs, (ed), International
Civil Procedure (2003) 191.
Like citizens of other democracies,
every New Zealander deserves right to reasons for judicial decisions. Wake up Parliament.