NZBORA - S 4 5 AND 5 collectively

Question 1

section 4 5 and 6 tell us

Answer 1

tell us how nzbora should be applied

Question 2

the process for application is outlined in

Answer 2

r v hansen

origniates from oakes

Question 3

r v hansen fatcs

Answer 3

hansen was caught with 2kg of cannabis, misuse of drug act states people caught in possesion of this much are presumed to have for supply unless they can show they didnt have it for this purpsoe

Question 4

r v hansen breach

Answer 4

of the right in 25c to be held innocent until proven guilty

Question 5

step one of process for reading 4 5 and 6

Answer 5

ascertain parliaments intended meaning

Question 6

step two of process for reading 4 5 and 6

Answer 6

ascertain whether the meaning is apparently inconsistent with an nzbora right or freedom

is there a prima vacie breach

Question 7

step three of process for reading 4 5 and 6

Answer 7

if there is a breach ascertain whether the inconsistency is nevertheless a justified limitation under s5

Question 8

step four of process for reading 4 5 and 6

Answer 8

if it is not justified limit under s5 them ascertain whether is it reasonable possible for a rights consistent meaning to be adapted per s6

Question 9

step five of process for reading 4 5 and 6

Answer 9

if not courts must apply parliaments intended meaning via s4

Question 10

apply the five step process to hansen

Answer 10

1. intended - burden on accused to show weren’t supplier
2. breach of 525c
3. not demonstrably justified per s5,a arbiatry and other options
4. not a rights constant interpretation available would stretch meaning of words too far
5. must apply parl meaning per s4, hansen presumed to posses for supply

Question 11

arps v police facts

Answer 11

• a distributed videos of the tech shooting with video effects, in sentencing act section 9 says court can take into account in sentencing hatred towards a particular group

Question 12

arps v police issue

Answer 12

arps argued this was a breach of s14 his freedom of expression

Question 13

what test do the apply in arps v police

Answer 13

Oakes s5 test

Question 14

was the limit demonstably justify as per s5 in arps v police

Answer 14

• ## limiting hate speech is sufficiently pressing and has a substantial purpose, undermine society belling and cause violence

Question 15

was the limit demonstably justify as per s5 in arps v police

proportionate?

Answer 15

• the section is rationally connected, has minimal impairment and is a proportionate response

Question 16

arps v police held

Answer 16

section 9 1 h was justified limitation as per s14 nzbora

and Oakes is in action

Question 17

make it 16 Inc v AG facts

Answer 17

m was seeking a declaration of inconsistency stating that the minimum voting ages of 18 was inconsistent with s19 the right to freedom from discrimination

Question 18

make it 16 Inc v AG held

Answer 18

In the case of Make it 16, the court found that setting the voting age at 18 was unjustified discrimination, but upheld the current interpretation due to lack of a better alternative.