Razdan Rafig v Commissioner of Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 116/2014
[2015] NZSC 4

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	McGrath, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	The Applicant in Person A F Todd for Respondent
Judgment:	16 February 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Rafiq applies to this Court for leave to appeal against the decision of Wild J in the Court of Appeal.[1] In that decision, Wild J dismissed Mr Rafiq’s application for review of a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Registrar dealt with an application by Mr Rafiq for an order dispensing with security for costs in relation to an appeal by Mr Rafiq against a decision of Courtney J in the High Court.[2] Courtney J dismissed Mr Rafiq’s application for leave to bring a defamation action against the Commissioner of Police after the expiration of the two year period provided for in s 4(6A) of the Limitation Act 1950.
[1]Rafiq v The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police [2014] NZCA 492 (Wild J).
[2]Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 814 (Courtney J).
Wild J applied the principles in relation to dispensing with security for costs in the Court of Appeal that were settled by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[3] Accordingly, the proposed appeal does not raise any issue of general or public importance. However, Mr Rafiq argues that leave should be granted because a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred or will occur if leave is not given. However, nothing in the material he has placed before this Court indicates that Wild J erred in any respect in his application of the principles stated in Reekie v Attorney-General. We are therefore satisfied that there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice.
[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.
The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal brought by Razdan Rafiq against the Commissioner of New Zealand Police. The application aimed to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss Mr Rafiq's application for review of the Registrar's decision. The Registrar had previously denied Mr Rafiq's request for an order to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal against the High Court's decision dismissing his defamation action against the Commissioner of Police. The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal's decision should be reviewed and whether leave to appeal should be granted due to a potential miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court examined the principles established in the Reekie v Attorney-General case regarding the dispensing of security for costs. They concluded that the proposed appeal did not raise any issues of general or public importance. Furthermore, Mr Rafiq's argument that a substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave was not granted was not substantiated by any errors in the Court of Appeal's application of the relevant principles. The Court was satisfied that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no basis for the proposed appeal to proceed. In addition, the Court awarded costs of $2,500 to the Commissioner of Police as the respondent. The Crown Law Office represented the Commissioner of Police in the proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established