[Full judgment: SC7_2015IoaneTEITIOTAvCEMBIEleave.pdf]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 7/2015
[2015] NZSC 107
BETWEEN IOANE TEITIOTA
Applicant
AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Respondent
[…]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs.
REASONS
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Mr Teitiota, seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal under s 245 of the
Immigration Act 2009 refusing him leave to appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Immigration and Protection
Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that Mr Teitiota could not bring himself within either the Refugee Convention or New
Zealand’s protected person jurisdiction on the basis that his homeland, Kiribati, was suffering the effects of climate
change.
[…]
[12] We agree with the Courts below that, in the particular factual context of this case (even with the addition of the
new evidence), the questions identified raise no arguable question of law of general or public importance. In relation
to the Refugee Convention, while Kiribati undoubtedly faces challenges, Mr Teitiota does not, if returned, face “serious
harm” and there is no evidence that the Government of Kiribati is failing to take steps to protect its citizens from the
effects of environmental degradation to the extent that it can. Nor do we consider that the provisions of the ICCPR
relied on have any application on these facts. Finally, we are not persuaded
that there is any risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice.
[13] That said, we note that both the Tribunal and the High Court, emphasised their decisions did not mean that
environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could never create a pathway into the
Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction. Our decision in this case should not be taken as ruling out that
possibility in an appropriate case.
Decision
[14] The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Given the circumstances of the application, there is no order for
costs.
[Full judgment: SC7_2015IoaneTEITIOTAvCEMBIEleave.pdf]