PC (New Zealand) The appellants claimed that their treatment by the respondent infringed their human rights as guaranteed by the respondents signing the Convenant. They wanted to apply to the International Committee for relief, and applied to the respondent for legal aid. The respondent said it had no power to award legal aid for proceedings outside New Zealand.
Held: The issue was decided by whether the Committee constituted a judicial authority within the New Zealand legal aid statute. The Act set out a detaled list of courts for which legal aid could be granted. The Committee was not included. The Committee had chosen its name because it was not adjudicative, although its members were judges of the highest standing.
Held: The Board doubted that the Committee could be described as non-adjudicative, but eth issue was decided by the fact that it was not listed within the Act.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett
 UKPC 42
Cited – Arbitrators’ Institute of New Zealand Inc v Legal Services Board 1995
(New Zealand) A dispute had been referred to arbitration, and the question was whether a private arbitrator was a ‘judicial authority’.
Held: In their natural and ordinary meaning those words referred to a person or body: ‘ . . having power . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Human Rights
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174622