Human Rights and Parliamentary Sovereignty in New Zealand
35 VUWLR, 341, 2004
27 Pages Posted: 6 Oct 2020 Last revised: 7 Oct 2020
Date Written: 2004
This paper examines whether there was any basis for Parliament to enact section 3(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 in regard to human rights decisions of the Court of Appeal. The paper asks whether the Court of Appeal has indeed been “activist” in its human rights decisions. The discussion focuses on the areas where judicial activism might be suspected, firstly the filling of legislative gaps, and secondly statutory interpretation, with a special focus on implied repeal. Relevant decisions of the House of Lords under the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) are used as a contrast to the decisions of the New Zealand Court of Appeal. The paper comes to the conclusion that the New Zealand Court of Appeal has not been activist in the area of human rights.
Keywords: human rights, parliament, supreme court act 2003, court of appeal, activism, judicial activism, legislative gaps, statutory interpretation, repeal, comparative law, house of lords
JEL Classification: K1, K10, K19, K2, K22, K23, K29, K3, K33, K39, K4, K41, K42, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation