Smith v Attorney-General

[2022] NZCA 637

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA404/2022
 [2022] NZCA 637

BETWEEN	MICHAEL JOHN SMITH Appellant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Court:	Miller and Brown JJ
Counsel:	D M Salmon KC, M Heard and S J Humphrey for Appellant J M Prebble, K F Gaskell and D Ranchhod for Respondent J D Every-Palmer KC and J S Cooper KC for Climate Action NZ Inc
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 December 2022 at 3.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to intervene is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

1. Lawyers for Climate Action NZ Inc (LCANZI) has applied for leave to intervene in this appeal.

2. We accept that LCANZI has an interest in the subject matter of the appeal and expertise in climate change law.

3. However, it is not apparent that LCANZI will assist the Court sufficiently to  justify the burden on court resources that invariably results from intervention.  There is force in the Attorney-General’s submission that foreshadowed legal content does not ordinarily warrant intervention where (as in this case) the appellant is well able to advance the same arguments.  LCANZI is a public interest organisation and its resources presumably are available to the appellant.

4. The Human Rights Commission has been given leave to intervene, but it is in a different position.  It has a statutory responsibility under s 5 of the Human Rights Act 1993[1] and it brings a broader perspective and assistance with the relationship between climate change and internationally protected human rights.

   [1]Human Rights Act 1993, s 5(2)(j).

5. The application for leave to intervene is declined.

Solicitors:
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent
Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Climate Action NZ Inc