Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 113/2014
[2014] NZSC 181

BETWEEN	RAZDAN RAFIQ Applicant
AND	COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in Person A Todd for Respondent
Judgment:	10 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of Harrison J, dismissing the application for review of the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs and ordering him to pay security for costs on or before 3 November 2014.[1] The underlying appeal concerns a judgment of the High Court ordering the applicant to pay security for costs in proceedings brought against the Commissioner of New Zealand Police alleging that he had been assaulted by a police officer.[2]
[1]Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2014] NZCA 500.
[2]Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police [2014] NZHC 2074.
The principles applicable to dispensing with security for costs in the Court of Appeal were settled by this Court in Reekie v Attorney-General.[3] The proposed appeal does not raise any fresh issue of general or public importance. There is no error of principle in Harrison J’s approach. Nor is there any risk of a miscarriage of justice.
[3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63.
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Razdan Rafiq sought leave to appeal against a decision by Harrison J, who dismissed the application for review of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal's refusal to dispense with security for costs. The underlying case involved an appeal against a High Court decision that ordered Rafiq to pay security for costs in a case where he alleged assault by a police officer. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed the appeal against the High Court's decision, and the matter now before the Supreme Court was regarding the refusal to dispense with security for costs.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the appeal raised any fresh issue of general or public importance and if there was an error of principle in Harrison J's approach or a risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court considered the principles established in Reekie v Attorney-General regarding dispensing with security for costs in the Court of Appeal. After examining the case, the Supreme Court found that the proposed appeal did not raise any new issues of importance and that there was no error of principle in Harrison J's decision. Furthermore, the Court determined that there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Given the above findings, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal. This decision upheld the lower court's ruling that Rafiq was to pay security for costs on or before 3 November 2014. The Crown Law Office represented the Respondent in the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established