Udompun v Minister of Immigration

In the case of Udompun v Minister of Immigration, the applicant, Pimthong Udompun, a non-English speaking Thai national, sought leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had determined that there had been no breach of her rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The primary issue was whether the immigration officers had complied with the requirements of the Bill of Rights Act when communicating with Mrs Udompun through an English-speaking member of her travel party, as no professional interpreter was available at the time. The applicant argued that communication should have been on an individual basis, that a professional interpreter should have been used, and that a record of the communication should have been made.

The Supreme Court of New Zealand considered the legal issues raised by the applicant, including whether the use of an English-speaking member of Mrs Udompun’s travel party for communication with immigration officials was sufficient, and whether a professional interpreter was necessary in every case. The Court also considered whether the individual interviews were necessary and whether there was a breach of natural justice. The Court found that the principles to be applied were uncontentious and that the issue was rather whether what was done in the particular circumstances was sufficient to give effect to Mrs Udompun’s rights. The Court of Appeal’s assessment that the assistance provided was not in breach of those rights was not challenged on any point of general or public importance.

The Supreme Court held that no point of general or public importance arose from the Court of Appeal’s decision, and that there was no basis for the proposition that there had been a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.