AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal

[2017] NZHC 2312

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-003142 [2017] NZHC 2312

UNDER

Section 247 of the Immigration Act 2009

and the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of the 1951 Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol

BETWEEN

AR Applicant

AND

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER

Second Respondent

intituling continued over

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	22 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 22 September 2017 at 3.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland.

Copy to: Applicant.

CIV-2015-404-0033143

UNDER  Section 245 of the Immigration Act 2009

IN THE MATTER       of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol

BETWEEN                 AR Appellant

ANDREFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER Respondent

[1]      Duffy  J  permitted AR  to  bring  an  appeal  and  a  related  judicial  review proceeding in connection with a decision to decline AR refugee status and protected person status.1    I heard the appeal and judicial review proceeding—and dismissed both.2  The Crown seeks 2B costs in connection with the hearing.

[2]      AR acknowledges he was unsuccessful, and so  costs would normally be awarded to the Crown.  However, he resists costs as the case involved a matter of public interest and he acted reasonably;3  (his) human rights were at stake; and the refugee context favours the exercise of discretion against costs.  AR also notes he already faces a costs award in relation to another case (of almost $12,600).

[3]      I accept AR acted reasonably, but the case was brought to protect his private interests.  True, Duffy J granted leave to allow exploration of credibility assessment in a refugee context, in turn a matter of public interest.  However, I concluded that issue was settled at common law.  And as observed, AR’s interest was not in the elucidation of principle, but protection of private interests.

[4]      The human rights point raised by AR is largely co-terminus with his third point: the refugee context.   I know of no authority which permits this context to displace normal costs principles.  And none was cited to Palmer J in a recent costs decision in connection with a failed refugee claim.4    The fact AR must pay other costs does not affect the calculus either.

[5]      Costs on a 2B basis of $14,272 are awarded in favour of the Crown.

……………………………..

Downs J

1      AR v Immigration and Protection Officer [2017] NZHC 132.

2      AR v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2017] NZHC 2039.

3      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.7(e).

4      RM v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2016] NZHC 1701.