Puli'uvea v Removal Review Authority

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judgment Date: 08 July 1996
• Date: 08 July 1996
• Court: Court of Appeal

New Zealand, Court of Appeal.

(Richardson President; Keith and Blanchard JJ)

Puli'uvea

and

Removal Review Authority1

Human rights Family rights Rights of the child Relevant treaty obligations Deportation of mother Duty to consider rights of children International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Relationship of international law and municipal law Treaties Duty of court and officials to take into account Deportation The law of New Zealand

Summary: The facts:In May 1996, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal to grant her interim relief in proceedings in which she challenged the decision of the Removal Review Authority in December 1993 not to cancel a removal order made against her in May 1992, and the decision of immigration officials in February 1995 to carry out the original removal order. She applied for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from that judgment of the Court of Appeal.

The appellant contended that there was an appeal as of right and that there was discretion to grant leave from any other judgment if, in the Court's opinion, the question involved was one of great general or public importance. In support of the latter contention, the appellant added that (1) the Court had stepped away from its interim judgment in Tavita v. Minister of ImmigrationINTL,2 (2) there were principles at stake in relation to the application of treaties, and (3) the Court had not taken into account that the starting point was to consider the interests of the family and the child.

Held:The application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee was refused.

(1) The appeal brought before the Court was for interim relief, which was an interlocutory matter, and did not appear to be a final Judgment in terms of Rule 2(a). The right to residency in New Zealand could not be put in the monetary terms that Rule 2(a) required. Furthermore, it was the appellant's husband's removal from New Zealand in early 1995 that prevented her from earning her wages, and it was not any action that might have been taken against her to give effect to the currently challenged decision.

(2) There was no sharp contrast between the decision in the current case

and the decision in Tavita; the passages in the relevant judgments were therefore not compared. No issue of great general or public importance had been invoked

(3) The Court and the Privy Council had previously had to consider and determine the application of treaties, particularly in the areas of immigration, human rights, the interests of children and the interests of the family. On the facts it was not necessary to address some of the broader issues about the status of human rights treaties within the legal order of New Zealand. The statutory powers in question could be read consistently within the relevant provisions of the Covenant and the Convention. Since actions taken under the statutory powers could not be upset in the exercise of the powers of judicial review, no issue arose about the status of the treaties.

(4) According to the judgments of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the officials in this case had had regard to the primary consideration of the best interests of the child.

The following is the text of the judgment of the Court, delivered by Keith J:

Mrs Puli'uvea applies for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from the judgment of this Court given on 24 May 1996. In that judgment (CA 236/95) the Court dismissed her appeal against the refusal by Temm J to grant her interim relief in proceedings in which she challenges two...