Rabson v Attorney-General

In the High Court of New Zealand, Mr Malcolm Edward Rabson brought judicial review proceedings against the Attorney-General, arguing that the Attorney-General failed to notify Cabinet of the non-compliance with existing law by Supreme Court judges. This followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Greer v Smith, which Mr Rabson believed breached section 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003. The Attorney-General applied to strike out the claim, asserting that the Cabinet Manual did not impose an obligation on him in relation to judicial actions and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review Supreme Court decisions.

The court needed to determine whether the Cabinet Manual imposed an obligation on the Attorney-General to notify Cabinet of judicial non-compliance and if the Court had jurisdiction to review the Supreme Court’s decision. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

The court held that the Cabinet Manual was not a primary source of constitutional law and was not independently justiciable. It found that the Manual's paragraph 4.3 did not impose an obligation on the Attorney-General concerning judicial actions, as it was concerned with the Attorney-General’s relationship with the executive branch. The court also determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Supreme Court’s decision on the merits, as such matters could only be addressed through appeal. Lastly, the court found that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as they attempted to re-litigate a matter already determined against Mr Siemer.

The application for judicial review or declaratory relief was struck out, and the respondent was entitled to costs.