The bill of rights debate: why the New Zealand bill of rights act 1990 is a bad model for Britain

Butler, Andrew

doi:10.1093/ojls/17.2.323

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…184 (e) Further arguments The Bill of Rights was specifically drafted to apply only to state and public functions. 185 It may therefore be contrary to Parliament's original intentions to read in positive obligations. In fact, the White Paper explicitly stated that the Bill of Rights does not impose positive obligations on the state.…”

Section: (Iii) Germanymentioning

confidence: 95%

Protection Against Slavery in New Zealand

Heesterman¹

2015

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in CN v The United Kingdom highlighted that slavery remains a modern problem. It may no longer resemble the traditional picture of slavery dramatically presented by Hollywood but it is no less an issue. Modern slavery is less visible; it is hidden away within homes, normal workplaces or in overseas factories. This article argues that New Zealand's current treatment of slavery is inadequate, exemplified by the absence of prosecutions. Thorough protection of slavery requires clear definitions that courts can easily apply. This article explores how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 could be used to remedy this situation. This article argues for the application of the Drittwirkung concept to give a horizontal effect to a right against slavery. Furthermore it is argued that New Zealand is under positive obligations to actively prevent rights violations, not merely avoid them. These positive obligations are a key component of modern human rights jurisprudence and can be read into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This article speculates that one action courts could take is to undertake the development of a tort action against slavery.

show abstract

Section: (Iii) Germanymentioning

confidence: 95%

Protection Against Slavery in New Zealand

Heesterman¹

2015

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…208 Although NZBORA is not supreme law in New Zealand, and cannot be used to invalidate other enactments, it is still recognised as an important constitutional document. 209 Where a Bill is inconsistent with any of the rights and freedoms contained in NZBORA, s 7 imposes a duty on the Attorney-General (AG) to report to Parliament on the inconsistencies.…”

Section: A the Register's Inconsistency With The New Zealand Bill Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Registering Public Fear: An Analysis of the New Zealand Child Sex Offender Government Agency Register

White

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1 The debate, generally speaking, is a cynosure for views concerning the relative merits of judicial discretion in relation to the supreme authority of the legislature; Lord Woolf [30] inter alia arguing that there is no threat to democratic institutions from a Bill of Rights, Butler [7] inter alia arguing the precise opposite. Where these arguments have centred upon the effects upon either judicial discretion or upon the supremacy of democratic institutions, McNamara's study attempts to disentangle cause and effect concerning the degree to which human rights legislation is embedded, and to do this by assessing the differential success of rights claims in the jurisdictions chosen.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…See for example: Alston[2], Allan[1], Arthurs and Arnold[3], Banakar[4], Butler[7], Epp[10], Keith[18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%