Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Last updated

Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employments
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal
Decided8 May 2014
Citation[2014] NZCA 173; [2014] NZAR 688.
Case history
Prior action[2013] NZHC 3125
Subsequent action[2015] NZSC 107
Court membership
Judges sittingStevens, Wild and Miller JJ
Keywords
Environmental refugee, Kiribati, immigration, climate change

Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment concerned an application by a Kiribati man, Ioane Teitiota, for leave to appeal against a decision of New Zealand's Immigration and Protection Tribunal that declined to grant him refugee and/or protected person status. Teitiota's case became a cause célèbre for environmentalists and human rights activists as it made its way towards the Supreme Court. Teitiota was declined application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2015. [1] In September 2015 Teitiota was placed in police custody and deported back to Kiribati. [2]

Contents

Teitiota's case gained international media attention as being that of the world's first climate change refugee. As Kenneth R. Weiss wrote, "Consequently, over the past year, this 38-year-old migrant farmworker has become an unlikely international celebrity, a stand-in for the thousands of people in Kiribati—as well as millions more worldwide—expected to be forced from their homes due to rising seas and other disruptions on a warming planet. Teitiota is a contender to become the world's first climate refugee, albeit an accidental one." [3]

Teitiota challenged his removal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In October 2019, the UN Human Rights Committee declared his communication admissible but found no violation of Teitiota's right to life. [4] [5]

Background

Teitiota and his wife arrived in New Zealand from Kiribati in 2007 and continued to reside in the country illegally after the expiration of their permits. [6] The couple have two children who were born in New Zealand but are not entitled to New Zealand citizenship. [6] After being arrested, Teitiota applied for refugee or protected person status, which was declined by an immigration official. [7]

Teitiota appealed the decision of the immigration official to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal,

[39] The Tribunal finds that the limited capacity of South Tarawa to carry its population is being significantly compromised by the effects of population growth, urbanisation, and limited infrastructure development, particularly in relation to sanitation. The negative impacts of these factors on the carrying capacity of the land on Tarawa atoll are being exacerbated by the effects of both sudden onset environmental events (storms) and slow-onset processes (sea level rise).

[40] As for the appellant, the Tribunal finds the appellant is from Kiribati and has been living with his wife’s family in their village on South Tarawa. For a number of years prior to coming to New Zealand in 2007, he was unemployed, relying on subsistence agriculture and fishing, supplemented by support from his wife’s brother who is in employment there. Concerned about the coastal erosion which he witnessed from 2000 onwards and the increasing intrusion of salt water onto the land during high tides, and aware of the debate around climate change, the appellant and his wife came to New Zealand in 2007. They have three children born here.

[41] The appellant does not wish to return to Kiribati because of the difficulties they faced due to the combined pressures of over-population and sea-level-rise. The house they were living in on South Tarawa is no longer available to them on a long term basis. Although their families have land on other islands, these face similar environmental pressures and the land available is of limited size and has other family members living there.

—  Immigration and Protection Tribunal, Judgment of 5 June 2013 [8]

Counsel for Teitiota sought leave to appeal the judgment of the Tribunal on questions of law unsuccessfully in the High Court before seeking the leave of the Court of Appeal.

Judgment

As an extremely low-lying country, surrounded by vast oceans, Kiribati is at risk from the negative effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and storm surges. As an extremely low-lying country, surrounded by vast oceans, Kiribati is at risk from the negative effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and storm surges, 2011. Photo- Erin Magee - DFAT (12426392094).jpg
As an extremely low-lying country, surrounded by vast oceans, Kiribati is at risk from the negative effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and storm surges.

Counsel for Teitiota raised six questions of law in their application for leave to appeal. The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal as they found no arguable case on any of the questions of law raised. The judgment of the Court was delivered by Justice Wild.

The first question of law dealt with by Wild J was

As the word “refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change and its effects, did the Tribunal err in law in using the term “sociological refugee” to distinguish what could amount to valid grounds for Mr Teitiota to seek refugee status? [9]

Wild J held that the Tribunal had correctly defined refugee in the context of the Immigration Act 2009, which imports the definition of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Refugees were those persons,

... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. [10]

Furthermore, Wild J held that the Tribunal had correctly defined the meaning of, "being persecuted" [which] rested on human agency, although it could encompass non-state actors. It accepted the requirement for some form of human agency did not mean climate change could never “create pathways into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction". [11] And Wild J held that Tribunal's reasoning that Teitiota would not be persecuted if returned to Kiribati was legally sound.

The second question dealt with by the Court concerned whether the Tribunal's ruling erred in law when it found that because everyone in Kiribati would suffer from climate change, Teitiota was disqualified from refugee status. [12] Wild J held that the second question was a reformulation of the first, and that the part of the judgment Teitiota was appealing merely expressed the view that he was not being persecuted under one of the five protected grounds - race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group, or holding a political opinion. [13] The third question concerned whether the Tribunal had erred by not failing to consider that climate change was caused by indirect human agency. Wild J said, "the question is not open for serious argument". [14] Questions four and five concerned the effect of returning to Kiribati on Teitiota's children. On these questions Wild J approved the decision in the High Court where Priestly J had ruled that on these points there was no identifiable error of law. [15]

Kiribati comprises 33 atolls and reef islands and one raised coral island, Banaba. They have a total land area of 800 square kilometres (310 sq mi), and are dispersed over 3.5 million square kilometres, (1,351,000 square miles). Kiribati on the globe (Polynesia centered).svg
Kiribati comprises 33 atolls and reef islands and one raised coral island, Banaba. They have a total land area of 800 square kilometres (310 sq mi), and are dispersed over 3.5 million square kilometres, (1,351,000 square miles).

The sixth question concerned whether the Tribunal had made an error of law by finding that in Kiribati supplies of food and water are adequate. Wild J held this question was not open to serious argument,

Certainly, there was evidence from each of Mr Teitiota, Mr Corcoran and Mr Teitiota’s wife, that the rise in the level of the Pacific Ocean is adversely affecting homes, crops, coconut palms and fresh water supplies in Kiribati. At high tides and king tides, seawater sometimes comes into coastal homes. Salt water has killed some coconut palms and crops. It has contaminated drinking water drawn from wells. But the Tribunal was right to find that the supplies of food and water for Mr Teitiota and his family would be adequate if they were required to return to Kiribati. The Tribunal readily accepted that the standard of living of the Teitiota family back in Kiribati would compare unfavourably to that it enjoyed in New Zealand. But the Tribunal was, on the evidence it heard, entitled to find that Mr Teitiota and his family on return to Kiribati could “resume their prior subsistence life with dignity“.

— Wild J, Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [16]

Wild J concluded the judgment by stating,

No-one should read this judgment as downplaying the importance of climate change. It is a major and growing concern for the international community. The point this judgment makes is that climate change and its effect on countries like Kiribati is not appropriately addressed under the Refugee Convention.

— Wild J, Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [17]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kiribati</span> Country in the central Pacific Ocean

Kiribati, officially the Republic of Kiribati, is an island country in the Micronesia subregion of Oceania in the central Pacific Ocean. Its permanent population is over 119,000 as of the 2020 census, with more than half living on Tarawa atoll. The state comprises 32 atolls and one remote raised coral island, Banaba. Its total land area is 811 km2 (313 sq mi) dispersed over 3,441,810 km2 (1,328,890 sq mi) of ocean.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of Kiribati</span>

Politics of Kiribati takes place in a framework of a parliamentary representative democratic republic, whereby the Beretitenti, President of Kiribati, is both the head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government, Beretitenti, and his cabinet, all MPs. Legislative power is exercised by the House of Assembly. The Judiciary of Kiribati is independent of the executive and the legislature. The Constitution of Kiribati, promulgated at independence on 12 July 1979, establishes the Republic of Kiribati as a sovereign democratic republic and guarantees the fundamental rights of its citizens and residents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Court of Appeal of New Zealand</span> New Zealands main intermediate appellate court

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand is the principal intermediate appellate court of New Zealand. It is also the final appellate court for a number of matters. In practice, most appeals are resolved at this intermediate appellate level, rather than in the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal has existed as a separate court since 1862 but, until 1957, it was composed of judges of the High Court sitting periodically in panels. In 1957 the Court of Appeal was reconstituted as a permanent court separate from the High Court. It is located in Wellington.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill Hastings (judge)</span> New Zealand judge

William Kenneth Hastings is a Canadian-born judge who served as the tenth Chief Censor of New Zealand from October 1999 to July 2010. He was chairman of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal from July 2010 until February 2013, and is currently a District Court Judge. He was the chair of the Broadcasting Standards Authority from October 2018 until August 2021. He was sworn in as the tenth Judge of the Court Martial of New Zealand on 20 July 2021. On 9 August 2021, Hastings was sworn in as Chief Justice of the Republic of Kiribati, a position he held until 8 December 2022. He was a member of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal of Vanuatu from July 2023 to June 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Employment tribunal</span> Tribunal public bodies in England and Wales and Scotland

Employment tribunals are tribunal public bodies in both England and Wales and Scotland that have statutory jurisdiction to hear disputes between employers and employees.

<i>Singh v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada constitutional case

Singh v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 is a 1985 case of the Supreme Court of Canada. It determined that refugee claimants had a constitutional right to an oral hearing, by the principles of fundamental justice. The judgment was an early decision under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was also decided under the Canadian Bill of Rights. It had a significant impact on immigration law, human rights law, constitutional law, and administrative law in Canada. The Singh decision resulted in amnesty being granted to tens of thousands of refugee claimants and sweeping reforms which gave Canada one of the most liberal and most expensive refugee systems in the world. The anniversary of the ruling, 4 April, has been observed in Canada as Refugee Rights Day.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">High Court of New Zealand</span> Superior court of New Zealand

The High Court of New Zealand is the superior court of New Zealand. It has general jurisdiction and responsibility, under the Senior Courts Act 2016, as well as the High Court Rules 2016, for the administration of justice throughout New Zealand. There are 18 High Court locations throughout New Zealand, plus one stand-alone registry.

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.

Immigration New Zealand, formerly the New Zealand Immigration Service (NZIS), is the agency within the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that is responsible for border control, issuing travel visas and managing immigration to New Zealand.

<i>Owen v R</i> New Zealand Supreme Court judgment

Kurt John Owen v The Queen [2007] NZSC 102 is a decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand handed down on 11 December 2007. It concerned the grounds for appeal in section 385(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Administrative law in Singapore</span> Law of Singapores government agencies

Administrative law in Singapore is a branch of public law that is concerned with the control of governmental powers as exercised through its various administrative agencies. Administrative law requires administrators – ministers, civil servants and public authorities – to act fairly, reasonably and in accordance with the law. Singapore administrative law is largely based on English administrative law, which the nation inherited at independence in 1965.

Tuvalu is a small island nation in the South Pacific, located North of Fiji and North West of Samoa. The population at the 2012 census was 10,837. Tuvalu has a written constitution which includes a statement of rights influenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. While most human rights in Tuvalu are respected, areas of concern include women’s rights and freedom of belief, as well as diminishing access to human rights in the face of global warming. The latter has played a major role in the implementation of human rights actions in Tuvalu given its geographical vulnerability and scarce resources.

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a specialist, independent tribunal established in New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009 with jurisdiction to hear appeals and applications regarding residence class visas, deportation, and claims to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. The Tribunal is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is chaired by a District Court Judge, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

<i>Taylor v Attorney-General</i> New Zealand High Court judgment

Taylor v Attorney-General[2015] NZHC 1706 is a New Zealand High Court judgment which made a formal declaration that a statute that prohibited prisoners from voting is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The action was brought by Arthur Taylor, a high-profile prison inmate. This was the first time a court had recognised that a formal declaration of inconsistency is an available remedy for statutory breaches of the Bill of Rights. Section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act states, "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In his decision, Justice Heath declared that the Electoral Amendment Act 2010 which stripped all voting rights in general elections from prisoners was an unjustified limitation on the right to vote contained in s 12 of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision after the Attorney-General appealed the jurisdiction of the courts to make declarations of inconsistency.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Kiribati</span>

The Judiciary of Kiribati is the branch of the Government of Kiribati which interprets and applies the laws of the country. In addition to the Constitution of Kiribati and the corpus of laws, the laws of Kiribati include customary law, which the courts must take into account when considering specified matters in criminal and civil proceedings.

<i>Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated</i>

Terranova Homes, also styled as TerraNova Homes and sometimes referred to as Terranova v Bartlett, was a decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal concerning equal pay for women, and turned on the interpretation of the Equal Pay Act 1972, which was enacted in response to the 1971 report of the Commission of Inquiry into Equal Pay. It was alleged that the wages paid by TerraNova Homes & Care Ltd to its caregivers were lower than they would be if care giving of the aged were not work predominantly performed by women. O'Regan P, Stevens and French JJ upheld the Employment Court's decision in Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v TerraNova Homes and Care Ltd that TerraNova was discriminating against its female employees. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, although they thought that the issue was more "finely balanced" than the Employment Court had illustrated in its decision.

<i>Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform</i> Irish Supreme Court case

In the case of Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3; [2010] 2 IR 701; [2011] 2 ILRM 157, the Supreme Court of Ireland found that the proportionality test should be used when reviewing administrative actions that implicate fundamental rights protected by both the Irish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. While the case concerned an application for judicial review of an asylum decision, the decision was described as carrying “implications for the whole body of Irish administrative law”.

<i>Chen Shi Hai v MIMA</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Chen Shi Hai v MIMA, also known as 'Chen' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 Kiribati constitutional crisis</span>

A constitutional crisis began in Kiribati when the Cabinet of Kiribati suspended two of its High Court Justices. High Court Judge David Lambourne was suspended in May 2022 while Chief Justice Bill Hastings was suspended on 30 June 2022, both over allegations of misconduct. A Court of Appeal ruling upheld an earlier ruling of Chief Justice Hastings that the government acted unconstitutionally in not permitting David Lambourne to resume his duties as a High Court judge, and overturned the subsequent attempted deportation of Lambourne. In response, the government suspended all judges of the Kiribati Court of Appeal on 6 September 2022.

David Lambourne is an Australian judge on the courts of Kiribati since 1995, first as Kiribati People's lawyer (1995–1999), solicitor general, then, since July 2018, as puisne judge Justice in the High Court of Kiribati. He is the husband of Tessie Eria Lambourne, leader of the opposition since 2020.

References

  1. ↑ "Court rejects climate change hearing". Radio New Zealand. 21 July 2015. Retrieved 22 July 2015– via radionz.co.nz.
  2. ↑ "Family face 'tough environment' in Kiribati". Radio New Zealand. 23 September 2015. Retrieved 25 September 2015– via radionz.co.nz.
  3. ↑ Weiss, Kenneth R. (28 January 2015). "The Making of a Climate Refugee". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 8 April 2015.
  4. ↑ "Treaty bodies Download". tbinternet.ohchr.org. Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  5. ↑ Hamzah Sendut, Jefferi (6 February 2020). "Climate Change as a Trigger of Non-Refoulement Obligations Under International Human Rights Law". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 12 February 2020.
  6. 1 2 Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [5].
  7. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [6].
  8. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [9].
  9. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [11].
  10. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [13].
  11. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [18].
  12. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [27].
  13. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [28].
  14. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [31].
  15. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [35].
  16. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [37].
  17. ↑ Teitiota v Chief Executive of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 at [41].
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.