New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 - Important Court Cases

Important Court Cases

A large number of cases have been heard under the Act since it was passed in 1990, mostly pertaining to rights around arrest and detention.

• Flickinger v. Crown Colony of Hong Kong, 1 NZLR 439, the Court of Appeal held that section 66 of the Judicature Act 1908, which denied the right of appeal in extradition cases such as this one, was to be interpreted in light of section six of the Act. Nonetheless, the Court held in this case the Bill of Rights had not been breached, and the appeallant, Flickinger, had to return to Hong Kong to face charges.
• Simpson v. Attorney General, 3 NZLR 667 (also known as Baigent's case), the plaintiffs alleged that police officers had persisted in bad faith with the search of the late Mrs Baigent's house when they knew that her property had been mistakenly named in a search warrant issued for a drug dealers' house. The plaintiffs sued on the grounds the police breached section 21 of the Bill of Rights' Act, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and arrest. Four out of five of the Court of Appeal's bench held that:

• The fact that the Bill of Rights did not include a specific remedies section did not mean Parliament did not intend to compensate for breaches of the Act;
• The Bill of Rights had to be interpreted in light of New Zealand's obligations under the ICCPR;
• The Courts can award remedies for breaches of the Bill of Rights;
• The liability of breaches of the Act fell on the Crown.

• Hopkinson v. Police, 3 NZLR 704, in 2003, Paul Hopkinson, a Wellington schoolteacher, burned the Flag of New Zealand as part of a protest in Parliament grounds at the New Zealand Government's hosting of the Prime Minister of Australia, against the background of Australia's support of the United States in its war in Iraq. Hopkinson was initially convicted under Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981 of destroying a New Zealand flag with intent to dishonour it, but appealed against his conviction. On appeal, his conviction was overturned on the grounds that the law had to be read consistently with the right to freedom of expression under the Bill of Rights. This meant that his actions were not unlawful because the word dishonour in the Flags, Emblems and Names Protection Act had many shades of meaning, and when the least restrictive meaning of that word was adopted Hopkinson's actions didn't meet that standard. This somewhat unusual result was due in part to the fact that the Bill of Rights does not overrule other laws (see Flag desecration).