Attorney-General v Daniels

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by the Human Rights Commission to intervene in an appeal brought by Linda Daniels and others against the Attorney-General. The respondents, parents of children with special needs, challenged the mainstreaming policy which educated such children in regular class settings rather than special schools or units. They argued that this policy was unlawful as it breached their children's right to freedom from discrimination under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The High Court had rejected this argument, finding that the legislation did not require treating differently those who needed different treatment to achieve equality. The Commission sought to intervene to argue for a different interpretation of the anti-discrimination provisions.

The central legal issue was the interpretation of the prohibition against discrimination in the context of the mainstreaming policy. The respondents contended that the policy violated their children's rights by failing to treat them differently to achieve equality, while the High Court had ruled against this interpretation. The Commission's intervention sought to support the respondents' stance by advocating for a broader understanding of the anti-discrimination provisions. Given the statutory functions of the Commission to advocate for human rights, the Court of Appeal determined that the Commission could assist in clarifying this interpretation.

The Court of Appeal granted leave for the Commission to intervene by submitting a written submission 21 days before the substantive hearing, with copies of all documents served on the Commission. The Court reserved the question of whether it would hear the Commission orally and any associated time limits, allowing these issues to be addressed at the start of the hearing. The Court also reserved questions of costs relating to the intervention, allowing for further discussion if desired by counsel. This decision enabled the Commission to contribute to the appeal by advocating for a specific interpretation of the anti-discrimination provisions, supporting the respondents' argument against the mainstreaming policy.