Rafiq v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 122/2017
[2018] NZSC 45

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent
SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS Second Respondent
INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY Third Respondent
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Fourth Respondent
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Fifth Respondent
AUCKLAND COUNCIL Sixth Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	14 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall of this Court’s judgment
(Rafiq v Attorney‑General [2017] NZSC 182) is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 4 December 2017, this Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal made by the applicant for want of jurisdiction.[1]
[1]Rafiq v Attorney‑General [2017] NZSC 182.
The applicant applies for a recall of the judgment. Nothing in his application provides any proper basis for recall. In particular, the applicant incorrectly asserts this Court has jurisdiction to deal with his application for leave to appeal. For the reasons given in the judgment to which the present application relates, that is incorrect.
There are no grounds to recall the judgment and the application is therefore dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rafiq v Attorney-General involved a significant legal dispute in New Zealand, with Rafiq, the applicant, challenging a decision made by the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The matter was brought before the Court by the applicant seeking recall of a previous judgment dismissing his application for leave to appeal. The Attorney-General and several other respondents were involved in the case, each with their distinct roles and interests.

The primary legal issue the Court had to resolve was whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to recall its earlier judgment that had dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The applicant argued that there were grounds for recall, but the Court needed to examine if any of these grounds were valid under the rules governing such applications. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the applicant's assertion about the Court's jurisdiction was correct.

In its judgment, the Court found that the applicant had not provided any valid grounds for recalling the earlier judgment. The Court reiterated that, for the reasons previously given in the dismissal of the leave to appeal, the applicant's assertion about the Court's jurisdiction was incorrect. Consequently, the Court held that there were no grounds to recall the judgment. As a result, the application for recall was dismissed, and the earlier judgment remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established