Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 73/2011
[2011] NZSC 97

BETWEEN RIGHT TO LIFE NEW ZEALAND INC
Appellant

AND THE ABORTION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE
Respondent

Court: Blanchard, Tipping and McGrath JJ

Counsel: P D McKenzie QC and I C Bassett for Appellant
C R Gwyn and W L Aldred for Respondent

Judgment: 26 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(a)Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b)If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.
(c)Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

REASONS

We decline leave to appeal on all other grounds raised by the appellant (being those encompassed in paragraphs 1.9–1.19 of the application for leave dated 28 June 2011) because it is plain that the legislation was based on the premise of the “born alive” rule, in the face of which the proposed arguments are untenable. Likewise the proposed argument concerning independence of counselling cannot succeed for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal.

Solicitors:
P J Doody, Christchurch for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Right to Life New Zealand Inc, an anti-abortion rights organisation, appealed against a decision of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, which was tasked with overseeing the administration of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. The appellant sought to challenge the legality of the Committee's functions and the approval rates for abortions, arguing that the law was not being properly enforced. The Committee, on the other hand, contended that the appellant's claims were unfounded and that the Committee was fulfilling its statutory obligations effectively.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Committee had the authority to review the decisions of certifying consultants and whether the High Court had jurisdiction to assess the lawfulness of those decisions. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to support the High Court's findings that the approval rates for abortions were unusually high and that there was reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.

The Supreme Court found that the Committee's functions did not empower it to review the decisions of certifying consultants to the extent that the appellant claimed. The court also held that there was no evidential basis for the High Court's finding that the approval rates for abortions were remarkably high. Additionally, the court determined that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to consider whether certifying consultants were complying with the "abortion law". Consequently, the Supreme Court declined leave to appeal on all other grounds raised by the appellant, finding that the legislation was premised on the "born alive" rule, which rendered the proposed arguments untenable.

The final orders of the Supreme Court were that leave to appeal was granted only on the specified grounds, and leave was declined on all other grounds. The court's decision underscored the limitations of the Committee's powers and the importance of adhering to the statutory framework governing abortion law in New Zealand.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established