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 $350,000 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.

See also

Related Research Articles

A lawsuit is a proceeding by one or more parties against one or more parties in a 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 with respect to a civil action brought by a plaintiff who requests a legal remedy or equitable remedy from a court. The defendant is required to respond to the plaintiff's complaint or else risk default judgment. If the plaintiff is successful, judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court may impose the legal and/or equitable remedies available against the defendant (respondent). A variety of court orders may be issued in connection with or as part of the judgment to enforce a right, award damages or restitution, 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Waitangi Tribunal</span> 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.

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, Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Scotland, Singapore, South Africa, Nigeria and the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

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 (ECHR) 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 they could indeed strike down statutes on the basis that they contradicted a bill of rights.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

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, not possessing any jurisdiction or powers beyond those conferred by statute. VCAT is less formal than a court and helps resolve disputes through mediations, compulsory conferences and formal hearings. 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 Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is an administrative tribunal established in 1977 through the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is directly funded by the Parliament of Canada and is independent of the Canadian Human Rights Commission which refers cases to it for adjudication under the act.

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, usually by a public body. A person who contends that an exercise of power is unlawful may apply to the Administrative Court for a decision. 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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Investigatory Powers Tribunal</span> State surveillance tribunal in the United Kingdom

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is a first-instance tribunal and superior court of record in the United Kingdom. It is primarily an inquisitorial court.

New Zealand is committed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which contain a right to privacy. Privacy law in New Zealand is dealt with by statute and the common law. The Privacy Act 2020 addresses the collection, storage and handling of information. A general right to privacy has otherwise been created in the tort of privacy. Such a right was recognised in Hosking v Runting [2003] 3 NZLR 385, a case that dealt with publication of private facts. In the subsequent case C v Holland [2012] NZHC 2155 the Court recognised a right to privacy in the sense of seclusion or a right to be free from unwanted intrusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health tribunal</span> Tribunal hearing for mental health treatment disputes

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, 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. Current Privacy Commissioner, Michael Webster, began his role in July 2022.

The authority for patient rights in New Zealand comes from the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994, the specific rules come from Health and Disability Commissioner Regulations 1996. This code improves the quality of healthcare in New Zealand and ensures that there is a consistent expectation for all consumers.

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)