178:. It is the role of the Inspector-General to determine whether the certificate was properly issued. This is not, properly speaking, an appeal or rehearing. The Inspector-General has privileged access to classified security information, significant powers, and wide discretion as to how to use them (they are acting, however, in a quasi-judicial capacity). The position of the Inspector-General was created in conjunction with the 1996 amendment to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act.
24:
153:
have "been provided to the New
Zealand Security Intelligence Service by the government of any other country or by an agency of such a government, and is information that cannot be disclosed by the Service because the government or agency by which that information has been provided will not consent to
292:
with respect to the
Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is slightly more open than that which governs security risk certificates under the Immigration Act 1987, in that there is a presumption that a summary of information will be made available to the applicant. The counsel are ordinary defence counsel,
216:
On 20 March 2003 a security risk certificate was issued by the
Director of Security under Part 4A of the Immigration Act that allows for "persons .... who pose a security risk … where necessary be effectively and quickly detained and removed or deported from New Zealand" on the basis of classified
273:
While the specific offences of terrorist bombing and financing of terrorism offences do not rely on the designation of entities, the other prohibition offences do, unless the prosecution can rely upon knowledge/recklessness of the group carrying out a terrorist act. The other offence (relating to
184:
Although the
Immigration Act allows both the Inspector-General and the minister to consider information other than the classified information signified by the security risk certificate, it does not explicitly provide for the fair and transparent procedures required by international human rights
252:
representing that entity, and all members of the public. A summary of the information, excluding any summary of information that will itself likely to prejudice the interests set out in s 32(3), is then approved by the court. A copy of that would then be given to the entity concerned.
147:"lead to the identification of, or provide details of, the source of the information, the nature, content, or scope of the information, or the nature or type of the assistance or operational methods available to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service"
160:"prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on a basis of confidence by the government of another country or any agency of such a government, or by any international organisation".
225:
A comparable procedure to the current system for review of a security risk certificate is that provided for the designation of an entity as a terrorist entity or an associated entity of a terrorist by the
150:
be "about particular operations that have been undertaken, or are being or are proposed to be undertaken, in pursuance of any of the functions of the
Service or of another intelligence and security agency"
244:, if satisfied that it is desirable to do so for the protection of the classified information received or hear the classified security information in the absence of the designated entity, and all
175:
233:
Under s 38 a marked departure occurs from New
Zealand's open justice and adversarial process in procedures relating to such applications to challenge or to appeal such designation.
131:
The security risk certificate is based on unchallengeable "classified security information". This is information that, in the opinion of the
Director of the
132:
197:
against a decision of the
Inspector-General which confirms the certificate, on the ground that the decision is "erroneous in point of law".
580:
88:
60:
263:
To prejudice the entrusting of information to the government … by the government of another country or international organisation; or
181:
The
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, a retired High Court judge, is required to review the security risk certificate.
107:
45:
38:
67:
241:
266:
To prejudice making of law including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial; or
472:
194:
128:
legal process whereby a person suspected of being a security risk can be incarcerated prior to expulsion from the country.
74:
227:
135:"cannot be divulged to the individual in question or to other persons" for various reasons, including those listed below.
260:
To prejudice the security or defence of New
Zealand, or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand; or
237:
575:
56:
157:"prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand" or
209:
was incarcerated in a maximum-security prison in solitary confinement on the strength of a report produced by the
34:
419:
485:
457:
445:
395:
374:
362:
350:
338:
326:
289:
81:
302:
210:
274:
dealings with terrorists) is also affected by extraterritorial jurisdiction either as to the
569:
217:
security information provided by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.
206:
125:
23:
276:
249:
245:
423:
435:
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1996, s 5(3)
280:
or to some aspect of connection with the offence or offenders.
17:
256:
Section 32(3) is denied if the disclosure would be likely:
426:, 19 December 2003, Williams J, CIV-2003-404-5872, para 28
174:
The sole avenue for appeal against a certificate is the
170:
To the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
471:, unreported, McGrath, Hammond and O’Regan JJ,
176:Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security
8:
293:and lack access to the classified material.
475:, 17 September 2004, CA166/04, paragraph 5
230:under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002.
321:
319:
133:New Zealand Security Intelligence Service
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
496:Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 ss 20, 22
315:
44:Please improve this article by adding
269:To endanger the safety of any person.
7:
193:There is a right of appeal to the
14:
22:
559:Immigration Act 1987 s 32(3)(d)
550:Immigration Act 1987 s 32(3)(c)
541:Immigration Act 1987 s 32(3)(b)
532:Immigration Act 1987 s 32(3)(a)
523:Immigration Act 1987 s 38(4)(b)
514:Immigration Act 1987 s 38(4)(a)
505:Immigration Act 1987 s 38(3)(b)
305:– a similar mechanism in Canada
288:The procedure for dealing with
205:Most famously Algerian refugee
406:Immigration Act 1987 s 114I(3)
240:or nominee, on request by the
143:Disclosure may, for example:
1:
46:secondary or tertiary sources
57:"Security risk certificate"
597:
581:Immigration to New Zealand
139:Reasons for non-disclosure
385:Immigration Act 1987 s 72
122:security risk certificate
469:Zaoui v Attorney-General
416:Zaoui v Attorney-General
221:Designation of an entity
325:Immigration Act 1987
290:classified information
284:Classified information
189:To the Court of Appeal
33:relies excessively on
484:Immigration Act 1987
456:Immigration Act 1987
444:Immigration Act 1987
394:Immigration Act 1987
373:Immigration Act 1987
361:Immigration Act 1987
349:Immigration Act 1987
337:Immigration Act 1987
303:Security certificate
213:unit of the police.
576:Law of New Zealand
363:s 114B(1)(a)(iii)
211:threat assessment
118:
117:
110:
92:
588:
560:
557:
551:
548:
542:
539:
533:
530:
524:
521:
515:
512:
506:
503:
497:
494:
488:
482:
476:
466:
460:
454:
448:
442:
436:
433:
427:
413:
407:
404:
398:
396:s 114B(1)(b)(ii)
392:
386:
383:
377:
371:
365:
359:
353:
351:s 114B(1)(a)(ii)
347:
341:
335:
329:
323:
242:Attorney-General
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
596:
595:
591:
590:
589:
587:
586:
585:
566:
565:
564:
563:
558:
554:
549:
545:
540:
536:
531:
527:
522:
518:
513:
509:
504:
500:
495:
491:
483:
479:
473:Court of Appeal
467:
463:
455:
451:
443:
439:
434:
430:
414:
410:
405:
401:
393:
389:
384:
380:
375:s 114B(1)(b)(i)
372:
368:
360:
356:
348:
344:
339:s 114B(1)(a)(i)
336:
332:
324:
317:
312:
299:
286:
223:
203:
195:Court of Appeal
191:
172:
167:
154:the disclosure"
141:
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
43:
39:primary sources
27:
12:
11:
5:
594:
592:
584:
583:
578:
568:
567:
562:
561:
552:
543:
534:
525:
516:
507:
498:
489:
477:
461:
449:
437:
428:
418:, unreported,
408:
399:
387:
378:
366:
354:
342:
330:
314:
313:
311:
308:
307:
306:
298:
295:
285:
282:
271:
270:
267:
264:
261:
228:Prime Minister
222:
219:
202:
199:
190:
187:
171:
168:
166:
163:
162:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
140:
137:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
593:
582:
579:
577:
574:
573:
571:
556:
553:
547:
544:
538:
535:
529:
526:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
499:
493:
490:
487:
481:
478:
474:
470:
465:
462:
459:
453:
450:
447:
441:
438:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
412:
409:
403:
400:
397:
391:
388:
382:
379:
376:
370:
367:
364:
358:
355:
352:
346:
343:
340:
334:
331:
328:
322:
320:
316:
309:
304:
301:
300:
296:
294:
291:
283:
281:
279:
278:
268:
265:
262:
259:
258:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
238:Chief Justice
234:
231:
229:
220:
218:
214:
212:
208:
200:
198:
196:
188:
186:
182:
179:
177:
169:
164:
159:
156:
152:
149:
146:
145:
144:
138:
136:
134:
129:
127:
124:is part of a
123:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
555:
546:
537:
528:
519:
510:
501:
492:
480:
468:
464:
452:
440:
431:
415:
411:
402:
390:
381:
369:
357:
345:
333:
287:
275:
272:
255:
235:
232:
224:
215:
204:
192:
183:
180:
173:
142:
130:
121:
119:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
32:
15:
207:Ahmed Zaoui
185:standards.
126:New Zealand
570:Categories
420:High Court
310:References
277:actus reus
250:solicitors
246:barristers
68:newspapers
35:references
486:s 114A(f)
458:s 114P(1)
327:s 114B(1)
424:Auckland
297:See also
98:May 2022
201:Example
165:Appeals
82:scholar
446:s 114D
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
89:JSTOR
75:books
248:and
236:The
61:news
37:to
572::
422:,
318:^
120:A
48:.
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
