Human Rights Review Tribunal

Last updated

The Human Rights Review Tribunal is a statutorily established institution fundamental to the application, determination and up holding of human rights in New Zealand. The tribunal is established under the New Zealand Human Rights Act 1993. [1] The Human Rights Review Tribunal is one of two key human rights bodies in New Zealand and provides the mechanism for adjudication and resolution of human rights issues. The jurisdiction of the tribunal extends to cover matters from domestic human rights law, principles given in the Privacy Act 1993 [2] and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. [3] Complaints may be bought by the Director of Human Rights or where it is deemed not appropriate to do so, a citizen may proceed with a claim at their own cost. The tribunal has the power to grant a wide range of remedies and in making a determination, is not required to give effect to technicalities but rather, the substantial merits of the case. [4] The Human Rights Review tribunal also holds special status within the array of tribunals in New Zealands domestic legal system, with a far more significant legal jurisdiction than other inter partes tribunals. This special status reflects the fact that decisions of the tribunal can have substantial political and societal implications.

Contents

Composition

Members of the Human Rights Review Tribunal are normally selected on the basis of knowledge or expertise of matters likely to come before the Tribunal. This includes such matters as, international and domestic human rights, public administration, economic, employment or social issues, cultural issues and the needs, aspirations and experiences of different communities within New Zealand. The current Chairperson is Rodger Haines QC. At present there are 10 members aside from the Chairperson who are practising lawyers or who have legal qualifications. Unlike judges, the Chairperson is not accorded tenure.

Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction of the Human Rights Review Tribunal is derived from three different statutes, The Human Rights Act 1993, The privacy Act 1993 and the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, with claims allowed to be bought where discrimination has occurred on grounds prohibited under these acts. The Human Rights Act protects against unlawful discrimination, such as discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, disability and political opinion. The Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 sets out the standards expected of health care providers in areas such as respecting patient privacy, ensuring services comply with relevant legal, ethical or other professional standards, and providing full information. The Privacy Act governs agencies which collect, hold and use personal information. It does so by way of a set of Privacy Principles. Alleged infringements of the Privacy Principles (or of codes of practice made under the Privacy Act, such as the Health Information Privacy Code) can be brought before the Tribunal for adjudication. The ground on which a claim can be brought are therefore of a wide variety. [5]

Claims process

A claim may be made against another person or government agency, with these claims being brought by The Office of Human Rights Proceedings, a complainant or any other aggrieved party. Proceedings may be bought by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings. When making a decision on representation, the Director must consider certain factors including whether the complaint raises a significant question of law and whether or not providing representation would be in the public interest. Should the Director choose not to proceed then a complainant may bring an action but at their own cost. Proceedings are to be commenced by the lodging of an application in a prescribed form.

Hearing procedure

Sittings of the Human Rights Review Tribunal are held at such times and places as directed by the Chairperson. The litigants may represent themselves or acquire the assistance of legal representation. All members of the tribunal must be present at a sitting but the decisions are by majority. The tribunal, unlike a court, must act according to the substantial merits of the case and not be bound by technicalities. In exercising its powers and functions the Tribunal must act in accordance with the principles of natural justice; in a manner that is fair and reasonable; and according to equity and good conscience. [6] The Tribunal may call for evidence, call on witnesses and generally require the evidence to be given under oath. The Tribunal adjudicates to the civil standard of proof and that is the balance of probabilities, and the tribunals focus is on assessing the parties conduct. Also the tribunal, if it considers it necessary, can dismiss any claims it considers frivolous, vexatious or not brought in good faith. Every decision that grants a remedy or dismisses a claim, must be given in writing with reasons. These reasons must include, findings of fact, explanations and findings of the relevant legal issues and its conclusions on such matters. [7] It is important to note that the option is available to the claimant to have the Human Rights commission attempt a settlement before tribunal proceedings, and should settlement not first be attempted, it is likely the Director will not consider acting on behalf of the claimant.

Remedies

The Tribunal may award a wide range of remedies with the appropriate choice being determined by the circumstances of the case. these remedies include, a declaration of a breach of the Human Rights Act 1993, damages up to $200,000 which is equivalent to the general jurisdiction afforded to New Zealand District Courts under the District Courts Act 1947 (s29). An order that the defendant perform any acts specified in the order with a view to redressing any loss or damage suffered by the complainant or, as the case may be, the aggrieved person as a result of the breach. A declaration that any contract entered into or performed in contravention of any provision of Part 1A or Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 is an illegal contract. An order that the defendant undertakes any specified training or any other programme, or implement any specified policy or programme, to enable the defendant to comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993. Or any other relief that the Tribunal thinks fit.

Special status among tribunals

It has been said that the Human Rights Review Tribunal holds special significance in New Zealands tribunal system. The tribunal in granting damages, is the only tribunal accorded the full power of a district courts in terms pecuniary limit and significantly, has the power to issue a declaration that legislation is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Such a declaration has wide reaching repercussions and requires for the executive to place more emphasis on human rights in the creation of legislation. The other significant feature of the tribunal is that its decisions can carry substantial political and societal implications which in term reflects its important role and function within the New Zealand legal system. An example is the fact that the tribunal can deal with matters of political sensitivity such as the human rights of prisoners. These factors act to show the fundamental importance of the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It is a fundamental body for the providing maintenance, access and the upholding of human rights in New Zealand.It has been suggested as such that the Chairperson be granted tenure to the level of a district court judge or even High court judge, however, these suggestions have not been met with legislative effect.

Costs

The costs associated with the tribunal are significantly less than those of litigating in court with the average per day being only $3,750. The minimal costs means that barriers to enforcement of human rights are minimised allowing access to justice. Further the costs may be covered by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings should the case be undertaken on behalf of the claimant. Should a claimant succeed on the merits of their case the Tribunal has the power to award their costs to be paid by the defendant.

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by a party or parties against another in the civil court of law. The archaic term "suit in law" is found in only a small number of laws still in effect today. The term "lawsuit" is used in reference to a civil action brought by a plaintiff demands a legal or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is in the plaintiff's favor, and a variety of court orders may be issued to enforce a right, award damages, or impose a temporary or permanent injunction to prevent an act or compel an act. A declaratory judgment may be issued to prevent future legal disputes.

Waitangi Tribunal Permanent commission of inquiry in New Zealand

The Waitangi Tribunal is a New Zealand permanent commission of inquiry established under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It is charged with investigating and making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown, in the period largely since 1840, that breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal is not a court of law; therefore, the Tribunal's recommendations and findings are not binding on the Crown. They are sometimes not acted on, for instance in the foreshore and seabed dispute.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

Interpleader is a civil procedure device that allows a plaintiff or a defendant to initiate a lawsuit in order to compel two or more other parties to litigate a dispute. An interpleader action originates when the plaintiff holds property on behalf of another, but does not know to whom the property should be transferred. It is often used to resolve disputes arising under insurance contracts.

Small-claims courts have limited jurisdiction to hear civil cases between private litigants. Courts authorized to try small claims may also have other judicial functions, and go by different names in different jurisdictions. For example, it may be known as a county or magistrate's court. These courts can be found in Australia, Brazil, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for remedies available to those whose Charter rights are shown to be violated. Some scholars have argued that it was actually section 24 that ensured that the Charter would not have the primary flaw of the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights. Canadian judges would be reassured that that they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.

A quasi-judicial body is non-judicial body which can interpret law. It is an entity such as an arbitration panel or tribunal board, that can be a public administrative agency but also a contract- or private law entity, which has been given powers and procedures resembling those of a court of law or judge, and which is obliged to objectively determine facts and draw conclusions from them so as to provide the basis of an official action. Such actions are able to remedy a situation or impose legal penalties, and they may affect the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties.

The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority or RSAA, was an independent authority that heard the appeals of people who had been declined refugee status by the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. It was established in 1991, and was replaced by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2010. New Zealand established the RSAA as part of its responsibility to uphold the right of asylum as a result of being a signatory of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The decisions of the RSAA are not binding, but have had a significant impact on refugee jurisprudence.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) was formed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in the state of Victoria, Australia. As part of the Victorian Justice system the Tribunal sits 'below' the Magistrates Court in the court hierarchy. However the Tribunal itself is not a court, and is a creature of statute without any inherent jurisdiction or powers. VCAT was primarily a forum for litigants-in-person and the participation of lawyers or other legal representatives is not encouraged in some List areas, substantially reducing the cost of litigation. However some of the List areas will by necessity require parties to have some form of representation.

The Victims Compensation Tribunal of New South Wales is a former tribunal of the Government of New South Wales that was established to determine the amounts that may be awarded to victims of crime for personal injury in New South Wales, a state of Australia. The tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to determine the amount which the Victims Compensation Fund of New South Wales would pay to a victim of crime. This tribunal was unique in Australia in that it did not notify nominated defendants of tribunal hearings and therefore did not hear evidence that may exist from such persons.

Judicial review is a part of UK constitutional law that enables people to challenge the exercise of power, often by a public body. A person who feels that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a court to decide whether a decision followed the law. If the court finds the decision unlawful it may have it set aside (quashed) and possibly award damages. A court may impose an injunction upon the public body.

United Kingdom administrative law

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years. Almost any public body, or private bodies exercising public functions, can be the target of judicial review, including a government department, a local council, any Minister, the Prime Minister, or any other body that is created by law. The only public body whose decisions cannot be reviewed is Parliament, when it passes an Act. Otherwise, a claimant can argue that a public body's decision was unlawful in five main types of case: (1) it exceeded the lawful power of the body, used its power for an improper purpose, or acted unreasonably, (2) it violated a legitimate expectation, (3) failed to exercise relevant and independent judgement, (4) exhibited bias or a conflict of interest, or failed to give a fair hearing, and (5) violated a human right. As a remedy, a claimant can ask for the public body's decisions to be declared void and quashed, or it could ask for an order to make the body do something, or prevent the body from acting unlawfully. A court may also declare the parties' rights and duties, give an injunction, or compensation could also be payable in tort or contract.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.

Remedies in Singapore administrative law Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

The Landlord and Tenant Board is an adjudicative tribunal operating in the province of Ontario that provides dispute resolution of landlord and tenant matters under the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario.

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner administers the Privacy Act 2020. The Privacy Commissioner is entrusted to protect personal information of New Zealanders in accordance with the Privacy Act.

Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec

The Human Rights Tribunal of Quebec is a specialized first-instance tribunal of the province of Quebec, Canada, that has the jurisdiction to hear and judge litigations concerning discrimination and harassment based on the prohibited grounds stipulated in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, as well as concerning the exploitation of elderly or handicapped persons and affirmative action programs.

References

  1. Human Right Act 1993
  2. Privacy Act 1993
  3. Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994
  4. Human Rights Act 1993 Section 105(1)
  5. Human Rights Act 1993 Sections 92I and 92J
  6. Human Rights Act 1993 Section 105(2)
  7. Human Rights Act 1993 section 116(2)