NZBORA - cases focused on s6

Question 1

re gordon facts

Answer 1

appeal against the decision to decline an application to adopt Tiffany after the separation

Question 2

re gordon issue

Answer 2

can a seperate couple be spouses

Question 3

re gordon

1. parl intended meaning

Answer 3

originally married couple, extended to de facto partners

Question 4

re gordon

2. pima facie breach?

Answer 4

yes breach of s19- right to be free from discrimination on the basis of marital status

Question 5

re gordon

3. is it demonstrably justified

Answer 5

no the discrimination was not demonstrably justified as there was no evidence that former spouses could not provide that same care for child

Question 6

re gordon

4. is there a rights consistent interpretation available

Answer 6

yes

purpose of at is to place child in good care jointly

chaging social circumstances

change to include seperate couples

Question 7

re gordon key takeaways

Answer 7

shows how far s6 can go - looking at the changing social circumstances and statutory stricture can be considered

Question 8

Fitzgerald v r facts

Answer 8

• appeled the three strike sexual offence sentence
• all three offences by f were at a low end of the scale and were driven by long lasting mental issues

Question 9

Fitzgerald v r

s5 test

Answer 9

rights 9 - not to subject to troture or cruel treatment
and
right 21 - unreasonable search and seizure cannot be justified

s5 test skipped

Question 10

Fitzgerald v r

s6 test

Answer 10

used to interpret ‘this applies “despite any other enactment” as this applies despite any other enactment in the sentencing act, crimes act or crim procedure act

as parl could not have intended to override the fundamental s9 rights

Question 11

Fitzgerald v r shows that

Answer 11

courts are liberal in their application of s6

no limits in ss9 or ss21 can be justified under s5