Contradiction apparent: NZ case law and intl law

Let Them Know We Care

Judges in New Zealand are not required to give reasons for decisions -

Article 14(1) of the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is "right to a fair and public hearing" in both criminal and civil matters. New Zealand ratified the ICCPR in 1978, but omitted to fully incorporate the rights recognized in ICCPR Article 14(1) into domestic law (New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 s 25).

Article 2(2) of the ICCPR provides that New Zealand is in violation of its international obligations for failing to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant: Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

Supreme Court of New Zealand July 2009-

On Application for Leave to Bring Appeal, the issue of right to reasons for judicial decisions was proposed to the Supreme Court. Kimberly Birkenfeld v Anthony Bruce Kendall and Yachting New Zealand SC7/2009 NZSC 68 [1 July 2009]
Outcome: The Court denied the Appellant right to contradict new issues raised by the Respondents and dismissed the application.
Note: Without public access to court records in New Zealand, the public is unable to scrutinize judicial power. In select cases, this can obstruct the right to natural justice.

Like citizens of other democracies, every New Zealander deserves right to reasons for judicial decisions. Wake up Parliament.