Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-Based Institutions - [2024] NZCA 128
Date of Judgment
24 April 2024
Decision
Summary
Judicial review - appeal - commissions of inquiry - terms of reference - ultra vires amendment
Appeal dismissed.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faithbased Institutions issued a minute stating the Commission's interpretation of its terms of reference led it to conclude that the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses were within the scope of the Commission's inquiry. The Commission's terms of reference were later amended to expressly state that this was the case. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Ltd, on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation in New Zealand, sought judicial review of both the Commission's initial interpretation of its terms of reference, as set out in Minute 16, and the lawfulness of the amendment to the terms of reference. The High Court dismissed all causes of action. The Jehovah's Witnesses now appeal against the High Court decision.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Commission had not exceeded its terms of reference prior to their amendment in September 2023 by conducting inquiries into the Jehovah's Witnesses? Held: No.
The terms of reference provided a detailed definition of "in the care of faith-based institutions" in cl 17.4. Whether an individual is in the care of a faith-based institution is a question of degree and bright-line distinctions are not likely to be able to be drawn. Whilst the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses may not have been the intended primary focus of the terms of reference, they are not, by definition, excluded from the scope of the Commission's inquiry.
Additionally, the Commission was entitled to undertake its investigations in the course of carrying out its function even if there was no suggestion that the Jehovah's Witnesses had been involved in the abuse of children. The Commission was entitled to pursue the lines of inquiry that it did, including for the very purpose of determining whether the matters it identified were appropriately addressed as part of its report.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that the amendment to the terms of reference was not targeted at the Jehovah's Witnesses in breach of their rights under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and therefore promulgated with an unlawful purpose? Held: No.
The amendment was lawfully made. There is no infringement of the s 27 right simply because judicial review proceedings are on foot. It is legitimate to amend the terms of reference to clarify issues in dispute as they arise.
Appeal dismissed.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faithbased Institutions issued a minute stating the Commission's interpretation of its terms of reference led it to conclude that the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses were within the scope of the Commission's inquiry. The Commission's terms of reference were later amended to expressly state that this was the case. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (Australasia) Ltd, on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses organisation in New Zealand, sought judicial review of both the Commission's initial interpretation of its terms of reference, as set out in Minute 16, and the lawfulness of the amendment to the terms of reference. The High Court dismissed all causes of action. The Jehovah's Witnesses now appeal against the High Court decision.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Commission had not exceeded its terms of reference prior to their amendment in September 2023 by conducting inquiries into the Jehovah's Witnesses? Held: No.
The terms of reference provided a detailed definition of "in the care of faith-based institutions" in cl 17.4. Whether an individual is in the care of a faith-based institution is a question of degree and bright-line distinctions are not likely to be able to be drawn. Whilst the activities of the Jehovah's Witnesses may not have been the intended primary focus of the terms of reference, they are not, by definition, excluded from the scope of the Commission's inquiry.
Additionally, the Commission was entitled to undertake its investigations in the course of carrying out its function even if there was no suggestion that the Jehovah's Witnesses had been involved in the abuse of children. The Commission was entitled to pursue the lines of inquiry that it did, including for the very purpose of determining whether the matters it identified were appropriately addressed as part of its report.
Whether the High Court erred in finding that the amendment to the terms of reference was not targeted at the Jehovah's Witnesses in breach of their rights under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and therefore promulgated with an unlawful purpose? Held: No.
The amendment was lawfully made. There is no infringement of the s 27 right simply because judicial review proceedings are on foot. It is legitimate to amend the terms of reference to clarify issues in dispute as they arise.