Section Sch4-12 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015: Other matters relating to procedure in proceedings involving classified security information
Text of the provision Official document
12 Other matters relating to procedure in proceedings involving classified security information (1) The court must determine the proceedings on the basis of information available to it (whether or not that information has been disclosed to or responded to by all parties to the proceedings). (2) If information presented, or proposed to be presented, in the proceedings includes classified security information,— (a) except where proceedings are before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the proceedings must be heard and determined by the Chief High Court Judge, or by 1 or more Judges nominated by the Chief High Court Judge, or both; and (b) the court must, on a request by the Attorney-General and if satisfied that it is necessary to do so for the protection of all or part of the classified security information, receive or hear the relevant part or all of the classified security information in the absence of all or any of— (i) a party other than the specified agency; and (ii) the barristers or solicitors (if any) representing that party; and (iii) journalists; and (iv) members of the public. (3) Without limiting subclause (2),— (a) the court may approve a summary of the classified security information that is presented by the Attorney-General except to the extent that a summary of any particular part of the information would itself involve disclosure that would be likely to prejudice the interests referred to in clause 3(3) ; and (b) on being approved by the court, a copy of the summary must be given to every party referred to in subclause (2)(b)(i). (4) Subclauses (1) to (3) apply despite any enactment or rule of law to the contrary. Compare: 2013 No 91 s 111
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →