Lawyers at odds over deciding Zaoui's future

Legal arguments over refugee Ahmed Zaoui's bid to stay in New Zealand resumed in the Supreme Court yesterday with lawyers debating who should consider his human rights.

Solicitor-General Terence Arnold, QC, representing the Crown, also said overseas commentary suggested it should be left to individual states to determine who or what was a threat to their national interests.

Mr Arnold said a person's relevant human rights should be taken into account when determining if he or she was about to be deported.

But he said decisions about deportation would be made by the Minister of Immigration, and not by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

Mr Arnold said that meant it was the minister who should consider human rights issues, such as whether deportation met NZ's international obligations, including under the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees.

Mr Zaoui's lawyers are disputing the Crown argument, saying leaving important human rights decisions to a minister could lead to a political or non-transparent decision.

The case is the latest in a series of legal arguments surrounding Mr Zaoui's status in New Zealand, with the Crown appealing against a majority Court of Appeal ruling which said Mr Zaoui's security status had to be based on credible evidence and considered in light of human rights realities.

The former Algerian politician arrived in New Zealand in December 2002 and claimed refugee status.

But the following March a security risk certificate was issued against him by the Director of the Security Intelligence Service, saying he constituted a threat to national security.

He was held in detention for two years before being released on bail by a Supreme Court order last December.

The validity of the security risk certificate is to be determined by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, Justice Paul Neazor, and this week's case centres around whether Justice Neazor should specifically consider a human rights dimension in making his decision.

Defining what that "human rights dimension" should be has itself been considered difficult, with the Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, yesterday describing language around it as "slippery".

Security was tight at the court for Mr Zaoui's case, and visitors were required to pass through metal detectors.

Mr Zaoui attended with supporters, but missed the early part of the afternoon's proceedings because he had to report to the Wellington Central police station as part of his bail conditions.

In his written submissions, Mr Arnold said wider international human rights considerations were relevant only to deportation, and not to the assessment of the danger to New Zealand security which Mr Zaoui might pose.

If the security risk certificate is found to be valid, the Minister of Immigration has three days to decide whether to accept it and deport Mr Zaoui.

The case

* The Government is appealing against a ruling by the Court of Appeal that the inspector-general must take Ahmed Zaoui's human rights into account when making his decision.
* The Crown says decisions about deportation would be made by the Minister of Immigration, not by the Inspector-General of Security and Intelligence.
* Mr Zaoui's lawyers say leaving important human rights decisions to a minister could lead to a political or non-transparent decision.