Young v Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 98/2022
[2022] NZSC 148

BETWEEN	STEVEN RICHARD YOUNG Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY‑GENERAL Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A R B Barker KC and J Moss for Applicant K G Stephen and H T N Fong for Respondent
Judgment:	14 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (Young v Attorney‑General [2022] NZCA 391).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Summit Law Ltd, Christchurch for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Steven Richard Young brought an application against the Attorney-General for leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal decision that dismissed his appeal. The underlying issue was the interpretation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and its application to the applicant's circumstances. The applicant argued that his rights under section 21 had been infringed, and the Court of Appeal's decision should be reconsidered.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct in dismissing the applicant's appeal. The applicant contended that the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and that this error warranted a review of the decision. The respondent, represented by the Attorney-General, maintained that the Court of Appeal's interpretation was correct and that the applicant's appeal should not be allowed.

The Supreme Court, in granting leave to appeal, held that the Court of Appeal's decision was indeed incorrect in its interpretation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had not properly considered the principles of statutory interpretation and the context in which section 21 should be applied. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the applicant's appeal, finding that the Court of Appeal's interpretation was flawed and that the matter should be reconsidered.

The Supreme Court ordered that the applicant's appeal be allowed and that the case be remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court of Appeal was directed to re-evaluate the applicant's claim in accordance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established