Law error

Ruapehu Bulletin, Volume 14, Issue 680, 1 April 1997, Page 4

Law error

• Your article "District plan challenge discounted" ( Ruapehu Bulletin, 25 March), has been sent to this society because it mentions Magna Carta. From the response of the Ruapehu District Council chief executive, we would have concerns whether due process of law and the rules of natural justice have been followed at the hearings committee stages of the District Plan. If a body acting judicially has no expertise in the matters raised it has a legal duty to receive and consider expert submissions and evidence prior to decision or judgment. The Privy Council so ruled regarding due process of law in January of this year when it quashed a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision. The second rule of natural justice requires — "Hear the other side". Council' s hearings committee process would be in error of law if it failed to comply with either principle. We understand Chapter 29 of Magna Carta was raised in the submissions process. The New Zealand Parliament enacted Chapter 29 in 1988 and it therefore meant to give it practical significance. To disregard or ignore what it says would be to undermine the will and authority of the Parliament. To simply remove or not recognise the interests and privileges embodied in it would be acting beyond the powers (ultra vires). We are not satisfied that the Ruapehu District Council should require people to proceed to the Environment Courts if the hearings process is in error of law.

John

Howard

Magna Carta Society Inc