Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court,
Wellington SC 107/2009; [2010] NZSC 107;
[2011] 1 NZLR 721
24 June
2010; 27 August 2010
Elias
CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Anderson JJ
Held:
Nature of refugee
decision-making
1 In New Zealand,
as in many countries, decisions on refugee status are not made in court
proceedings. The Refugee Convention does not stipulate any process by
which determinations of refugee status are to be made by State Parties.
To meet its Convention obligations, New Zealand has enacted legislation
that provides for an administrative process. There are special reasons
for the legislature to prefer an inquisitorial process for refugee
status determinations. There are particular problems in obtaining
evidence on the crucial questions and determining its reliability (see
paras [34] - [37]).
Refugee Appeal No. 72668/01 [2002]
NZAR 649 (NZRSAA) referred to.
2 The
Convention drafters recognised there would be inherent evidential
difficulties in fact finding in relation to events addressed by Article
1F. Their adoption of the standard of "serious reasons to consider"
that a claimant had committed the specified crimes, or was guilty of
other acts referred to in Article 1F(c), was a policy choice as to the
degree of satisfaction to be required of decision-makers on refugee
status. That formulation met the aims of parties to the Convention and
was consistent with a fair and workable procedure for making decisions
under Article 1F. Parliament has incorporated it in the process by
requiring that decision-makers act consistently with Convention
obligations (see para [38]).
3 Standards
of persuasion that apply to ordinary judicial proceedings do not
provide helpful comparisons or analogies in applying the standard.
Article 1F is not concerned with individual accountability of
applicants but whether they are excluded from refugee status under the
Convention. This is consistent with the inquisitorial nature of the
role of the RSAA. The "serious reasons to consider" standard must be
applied on its own terms read in the Convention context. Article 1F
clearly sets a standard above mere suspicion. Beyond this it is a
mistake to try to paraphrase the straightforward language of the
Convention. It has to be treated as meaning what it says (see para
[39]).
Al-Sirri
v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2009] EWCA
Civ 222; (2009) Imm AR 624 and
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15;
[2010] 2 WLR
766 (UKSC) applied.
4 The
inapplicability of rules of evidence gives the RSAA a broad discretion
as to what material it obtains and uses in its consideration of a
claim. A realistic and careful approach to that material must be taken
by the Authority, having regard to the evidential gaps and other
difficulties that refugee claimants face in making out their claims. A
proper analysis and evaluation is required, in the course of which a
legitimate and important consideration will often be whether what the
applicant says in evidence relevant to his or her status is credible
and plausible in the circumstances. In reaching factual conclusions the
Authority must usually assess the credibility of those giving evidence.
This will itself often require evaluation of the reliability and value
of independent sources of information relevant to that credibility that
come before the Authority. The overall factual assessment on Article 1F
issues is in the end to be made on the "serious reasons to consider"
standard stipulated by the Refugee Convention (see para [44]).
5 In the
absence of a right of appeal, it is not the role of a court in a
judicial review proceeding to undertake a broad reappraisal of the
factual findings of the Tribunal (see para [45]).
Article 1F(a) - crimes
against humanity
6 Under
Article 1F(a), the meaning of "crime against humanity" must be
ascertained from definitions in international instruments drawn up to
make provision for such a crime. The sources for ascertaining that
meaning are not confined to international instruments existing at the
time of making of the Convention. The Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court is a recent international instrument which directly
addresses the principles that govern liability for international
crimes. It is appropriate to refer to it for authoritative assistance
on what is a "crime against humanity" (see para [47]).
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15;
[2010] 2 WLR
766 (UKSC) applied.
7 It is
well-established that a person may commit crimes against humanity as an
accomplice without personally undertaking the criminal acts effecting
such crimes. What, however, has long been uncertain is the degree to
which the person must be complicit in the perpetrator's actions to
become liable as an accomplice for such an international crime.
Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute prescribe when persons have
individual criminal responsibility. Individual criminal responsibility
under Article 25.3(d) articulates a concept of joint enterprise
liability in response to the complexity often found when acts which are
international crimes are committed by a group or groups of persons,
each playing different roles. Joint criminal enterprise liability is a
form of liability which covers all such participants in a common
criminal plan. Under it, all those taking part in such a plan, being
aware of its purpose and character and sharing criminal intent, will be
liable (see paras [51] - [54]).
Prosecutor v Tadic (ICTY,
Appeals Chamber) 38 ILM 1518 (1999) referred to.
8 The
following observations in R
(JS (Sri Lanka)) are agreed to:
(a) It is not
necessary to show that the individual was engaged in a criminal
enterprise of a kind that would lead to conviction under domestic
criminal law. The focus should rather be on the wider concept of common
design such as the accomplishment of an organisation's purpose by
whatever means are necessary, including the commission of crimes
covered by Article 1F. An accused is to be held disqualified under
Article 1F if there are serious reasons for considering him voluntarily
to have contributed in a significant way to the organisation's ability
to pursue its purpose of committing war crimes, aware that his
assistance will in fact further that purpose (see para [67]).
(b) Joint enterprise
liability under the Rome Statute does not require participation in the
criminal act, but the person must be personally responsible for it.
This must in general be assumed if a person has committed the crime
personally, or made a substantial contribution to its commission, in
the knowledge that his or her act or omission would facilitate the
criminal conduct. Thus this principle covers not only active terrorists
and participants in the criminal sense, but also persons who perform
advance acts in support of terrorist activities. To be emphasised is
the importance of the facts of each case and of evidence of actual
involvement of the claimant, rather than an assumption of it derived
from membership of the organisation perpetrating the crimes (see para
[68]).
(c) The requirement of
a mental element for joint enterprise liability under Article 25 must
be seen as defining mens rea in a way which recognises that, when the
accused is participating in (in a sense of assisting in or contributing
to) a common plan or purpose, not necessarily to commit any specific or
identifiable crime but to further the organisation's aims by committing
Article 1F crimes generally, no more need be established than that the
accused had personal knowledge of such aims and intended to contribute
to their commission (see para [69]).
R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15; [2010] 2 WLR 766 (UKSC) and Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Case No 10C 48.07) 14 October 2008 (German Federal Administrative Court) applied.
9 Refugee
status decision-makers should adopt the same approach to the
application of joint enterprise liability principles when ascertaining
if there are serious reasons to consider that a claimant seeking
recognition of refugee status has committed a crime or an act within
Article 1F through being complicit in such crimes or acts perpetrated
by others. That approach fully reflects the principle that those who
contribute significantly to the commission of an international crime
with the stipulated intention, although not direct perpetrators of it,
are personally responsible for the crime. This principle is now
expressed in Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute and was earlier
well-established in customary international law. Its application
recognises the importance of domestic courts endeavouring to develop
and maintain a common approach to the meaning of the language of an
international instrument which is given effect as domestic law in
numerous jurisdictions of state parties (see para [70]).
10 The
Authority was entitled to hold that its findings established the
necessary elements of Tamil X's personal responsibility as part of a
joint criminal enterprise under Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute.
It did not, however, necessarily follow that Tamil X had actually
committed crimes against humanity. The difficulty lay in identifying
criminal acts of the LTTE in which his conduct made him complicit (see
para [72]).
11 It is
inherent in the notion of criminal complicity that liability arises
only once a primary criminal act has been committed, with which the
accomplice has become associated by reason of his or her conduct. There
must be "a predicate offence committed by someone other than the
accomplice", whose conduct itself will not usually amount to an
autonomous separate crime, because its criminality lies in facilitating
the criminal enterprise of another. This reflects the general position
in domestic criminal law where an accomplice's acts are not usually
criminal in themselves and become so only because they made the
accomplice a party to the principal's completed crime (see para [75]).
Prosecutor
v
Brdjanin Case No IT-99-36-A, 3 April
2007 (ICTY, Appeals Chamber);
Prosecutor v Akayesu Case
No ICTR-96-4-T2, (1998) 9 IHRR 608 and Prosecutor
v
Musema Case No ICTR-96-13-T 27 January 2000 applied.
12
Although joint enterprise liability makes liable those who contribute
to the commission of crimes by assisting or contributing to a common
plan or a purpose, it is concerned with holding responsible those who
in that way contribute to crimes that are actually committed. The link
between the conduct of Tamil X on the Yahata
in 1993 and crimes committed or attempted by the LTTE between 1985 and
1996 was too tenuous to provide serious reasons for considering he was
complicit in that offending. Had it been shown that he participated in
voyages where armaments were delivered to the LTTE in Sri Lanka and
subsequently that organisation committed crimes against humanity, the
position would be different. But as the evidence stood it must follow
that Tamil X was not disqualified from being a refugee by virtue of
Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention (see paras [79] and [80]).
Article 1F(b) - serious non-political crime
13 In
excluding from refugee status those who have committed a serious
non-political crime, Article 1F(b) reflects two Convention purposes.
The first is to ensure those who commit serious non-political crimes do
not avoid legitimate prosecution by availing themselves of Convention
protection. The language of the provision cannot, however, be read as
confining exclusion to those who are fugitives from justice. A further
purpose is to protect the security of states in which refuge is sought
by providing an exception from Convention obligations in respect of
those with a propensity to commit serious non-political crimes (see
para [82]).
Minister
for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs v Singh [2002]
HCA 7; (2002) 209 CLR 533 (HCA) referred to.
14 Extradition law has had a
political crimes exception since the
nineteenth century. It was developed in many countries through
inclusion of provisions in bilateral extradition treaties.
Historically, states often wanted to have flexibility in cases where a
request by another state for extradition to enforce its criminal law
might be seen as a pretext for persecution of a political dissident by
an unfair trial and/or excessive punishment. This exception from the
obligation to extradite reflected the respect felt in many countries
for those who sought refuge from dictatorships, even if the political
crimes they had committed were serious.
Historically, it was also
seen as generally unlikely that in the different political situation of
the country of asylum the dissidents would repeat their criminal
conduct (see para [85]).
T
v Immigration Officer
[1996] AC 742 (HL) referred to.
15 Courts have frequently
drawn on extradition law over the years to
determine what is a non-political crime. But it should not be thought
that the Refugee Convention was simply adopting that concept in its
historic form in art 1F. By 1951 the romantic perception of the refugee
who had committed serious crimes was out of date and it was recognised
that not
all refugees were worthy of
compassion and support. As article 1F
of the Convention recognised, war criminals and offenders against the
law of nations could properly be sent home to answer for their crimes,
and there were others whose criminal habits made it unreasonable for
them to be forced on to a host national against its will (see para [86]).
16 Extradition involves a process
of removal under statutory powers
on the application of a foreign government. The process is in
accordance with a treaty. There is nothing in the text of the
Convention that refers to extradition law or indicates an intention
that a non-political crime under art 1F(b) is the same concept. There
is no definition of when a serious crime is “non-political”. The focus
of the Convention is on the seriousness of the crime as well as whether
it was of a non-political nature. It is not on whether particular
conduct could be the subject of extradition proceedings.
Nor is the
gravity of the offending to be balanced against the risk of persecution
if the claimant is returned home (see para [87]).
Zrig v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) (2003) 229
DLR (4th) 235 (FCA) and S
v Refugee Status Appeals
Authority [1998] 2 NZLR 291 (CA).
17 Bearing in mind the wider
purposes of the Convention, overseas
jurisdictions and academic commentators have not given the concept of a
“serious non-political crime” a broad meaning that would catch all
serious criminal offending which had some element of political
motivation (see para [88]).
Minister
for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs v Singh [2002]
HCA 7; (2002) 209 CLR 533 (HCA) referred to.
Other cases
mentioned in
the Judgment
I
C Carter and R Kirkness
for appellant
R E Harrison QC and
C S Henry for first
respondent
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for
recognition of refugee status is
remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in
accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Background
Refugee Convention and
legislation
Procedural history
High Court and
Court of Appeal judgments
Nature of refugee decision-making
Application of art 1F:
(a)
Factual conclusions
(b)
Complicity in a crime
against
humanity
(c) Was any crime
against
humanity
committed?
(d) Were
serious
non-political crimes
committed?
Conclusion
Introduction
[1] The protection
accorded by the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees1 extends generally to those to whom
the Convention
accords the status of refugee. Included are those who fear persecution
for reasons stated in the Convention and who generally meet its
requirements for recognition as a refugee. There are, however, persons
who are excluded by the Convention from receiving its protection
because there are serious reasons for considering they committed
specified criminal acts before arriving in the country in which they
seek refuge. This appeal raises questions concerning the meaning and
scope of the exclusionary provision of art 1F of the Convention:
[2] The first respondent (whom we will call “the respondent”) is a Sri Lankan citizen who claimed refugee status shortly after his arrival in New Zealand and admission under a visitor’s permit in 2001. The context in which the issue arises of whether he is excluded from holding refugee status is the respondent’s association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) and their activities. While the Tamil Tigers is an organisation striving for political change which has been engaged in armed conflict against government forces, it has also committed many crimes against humanity during the period of conflict in Sri Lanka. The appellant, the Attorney-General, contends that the respondent became complicit in these international crimes in the course of his employment as Chief Engineer on a vessel, MV Yahata. This cargo vessel, which was owned by the Tamil Tigers, transported legitimate goods but also, at times, munitions and weapons for the Tamil Tigers’ use in both conventional military and other operations, in some of which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed. The appellant also contends that the respondent has committed serious non-political crimes during his involvement in the scuttling of the Yahata, after it had been apprehended in international waters by an Indian coastguard vessel. The appellant submits that in consequence of his actions, under art 1F(a) and (b) respectively of the Refugee Convention, the respondent is disqualified from being a refugee.
[3] Following inquiry, the Refugee
Status Appeal Authority2 held that,
because of his past conduct, the respondent is so disqualified under
both paragraphs of art 1F. The High Court3 dismissed
his appeal against
that decision but, on a further appeal, the Court of Appeal4
held that
it had not been shown on the evidence before the Authority that the
exclusion provision in the Convention applied to the respondent. The
Crown has appealed against the Court of Appeal’s judgment. The appeal
raises the question of what more is required than merely membership of
or an association with an organisation that commits crimes against
humanity for a person
to become complicit in such actions so as to be excluded from
qualifying as a refugee under the Convention. Related issues in the
appeal concern what is meant by the requirement that there be “serious
reasons for considering” that a claimant has committed a crime covered
by art 1F(a) or that conduct amounts to a “serious non-political crime”
under art 1F(b).
Background
[4] The respondent was
born in 1956 and grew up in Velvettiturai, in
the north of Sri Lanka, an area in which the local population is
strongly sympathetic to the Tamil Tigers. In 1981 he left Sri Lanka to
go to sea. He was initially based in the Middle East, working in engine
rooms first as an oiler and then as a third assistant engineer in the
Persian Gulf. He spent brief periods in Sri Lanka in 1986 for personal
reasons and returned in 1989 for his marriage when he remained for six
months. At the end of 1989 he took up a position as fourth engineer on
a container ship sailing between Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. He
returned to Velvettiturai in April 1990 to be with his wife for the
birth of their first child and remained in Sri Lanka for two years.
During this period he was regularly moving between towns as the area
was the focus of hostilities between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri
Lankan Army.
[5] From the mid-1980s the Tamil Tigers built up its own network of freighters. In general they were crewed by Tamils from Velvettiturai. For 95 per cent of the time these vessels transported legitimate commercial goods but during the remainder they also carried explosives, arms and ammunitions from a number of countries in Asia to areas of the Tamil Tigers’ operations in Sri Lanka where they were offloaded and transferred to jungle bases. The Tamil Tigers had established a cell in Trang, a coastal town in Thailand, later shifting it north to Phuket.
[6] The respondent said that in
June 1992 he was contacted by an
employment agent about an opportunity to work as Chief Engineer on a
vessel owned by a Thai company. He was not told its name. He travelled
to Trang where he met the ship’s agent and then to Phuket where, on 5
July 1992, he boarded the Yahata,
a cargo
vessel with a total crew of nine. For the next six months the vessel
worked routes in South Asia travelling to ports in Thailand and
Singapore. The respondent told the Authority that he did not know the
nature of the cargo during these voyages. He said he had little
interaction with other crew members and knew nothing about them other
than that most came from Velvettiturai, which is a fishing port and at
that time a centre of commercial and maritime contacts for the Tamil
Tigers. He also said he did not know that, as is established to have
been the case, most of the vessel’s crew were members of or sympathetic
to the Tamil Tigers.
[7] On 4 January 1993 the Yahata departed Phuket with the respondent on board. He said he had no knowledge of the cargo, which he had observed comprised packets and barrels when it was loaded from a trawler. During loading 10 extra persons joined the ship. Soon afterwards, the respondent said, he was advised that the Yahata was a Tamil Tigers’ ship. He wanted to leave but was told he could not do so until the vessel reached Sri Lanka. He learned that the 10 persons who had boarded were from the Tamil Tigers and that one was Krishnakumar Sathasivam (Kittu) who had been the organisation’s second-in-command until being injured during hostilities in Sri Lanka. The respondent acknowledged that at the time he knew who Kittu was.
[8] During the Yahata’s voyage to Sri Lanka, when
the vessel was some
440 nautical miles off Chennai, the Master told the respondent that the
vessel had reached its destination. The engines were stopped. The
vessel drifted for about 10 hours without displaying its national flag
and while displaying “not under command” lights. An Indian coastguard
vessel approached and sought to board the Yahata for verification
purposes. The Master warned the coastguard that the Yahata was carrying
110 tonnes of explosives and that dire consequences would follow if any
attempt were made to board her. The
Yahata then tried to flee and was
chased for two and a half hours, when the Master agreed to proceed to
Chennai. Near that port the Yahata
was surrounded by vessels of the
Indian navy and dropped its anchors. The respondent said that Kittu
informed the crew members that the Indian navy had agreed that they
would be repatriated to Sri Lanka. The Indian vessels came under rocket
propelled grenade and small arms fire which they returned. The Yahata
began burning and its crew jumped into the sea. They were rescued and
placed in custody.
Kittu and those others who had joined the Yahata for her last voyage
remained on board and all died. The ship sank.
[9] The respondent
and other members of the crew were prosecuted in the
Indian courts. In June 1996 the trial Judge acquitted them of all
charges. The prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which,
in March 1997, held that:5
[10] Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 provides that when an act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention, all are liable for that act. Section 353 provides that a person who uses criminal force to any person who is a public servant in execution of his duty commits an offence. Sections 437 and 438 provide that any person who attempts to commit mischief by any explosive substance to a vessel of 20 tons or more intending to destroy or render it unsafe is punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years. Undoubtedly these are serious crimes.
[11] The respondent and other crew
members were all sentenced to three
years’ imprisonment. The respondent was eventually released from
custody and permitted to leave India for Singapore in August 2001. He
obtained a New Zealand visitor’s visa and arrived in New Zealand on 13
September 2001 where he was issued with a visitor’s permit. His wife
and children also secured visitors’ visas and arrived in New Zealand on
24 December 2001. On that day the respondent filed his refugee status
application. His wife also made an application on 18 January 2002.
Refugee Convention and
legislation
[12] The provisions of
Part 6A of the Immigration Act 1987 applied to
the respondent’s claim to be recognised as a refugee in New Zealand.6
Under the legislation, claims are determined at first instance by a
refugee status officer.7 A person whose claim is
declined may appeal to
the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.8 Decision-makers
at each level
are required to act in a manner that is consistent with New Zealand’s
obligations under the Convention.9 Article 1A of the
Convention says
who is included in the term “refugee”. It states that a refugee is any
person who, being outside his or her country of nationality, is unable
or unwilling to return to the person’s country of nationality or
habitual residence owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion.
[13] The provisions of the
Convention do not apply to a claimant who
comes within the exclusionary terms of art 1F.10
Whatever the merits of
the claim under art 1A(2), such a claimant cannot be recognised as a
refugee. It is open, although not mandatory, for decision-makers first
to address exclusionary aspects, where they arise, before addressing
the merits. That is the course followed by the Authority in this case.
Procedural
history
[14] A refugee status
officer declined the respondent’s claim to
recognition of refugee status in a reasoned decision on 27 June 2003.
The officer was not satisfied that there was a real chance that the
respondent would be persecuted if he returned to Sri Lanka, so the
requirements of art 1A(2) were not met. Article 1F was not specifically
addressed. The decision records the officer’s concerns that the
respondent had taken up employment on a Tamil Tigers’ vessel without
knowing which company had employed him or what cargo the Yahata was
carrying at any
time during his six months of employment. These concerns were, however,
considered by the officer to be satisfied, principally because he found
the respondent to be credible. At the same time, the application of the
respondent’s wife was also declined.
[15] The respondent appealed to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. After he had given evidence, the Authority indicated to the respondent’s counsel that it would have to address the issue of whether the exclusionary provision applied to the respondent. Subsequently the Authority decided to conduct its own researches and collated two volumes of documentary material, including extensive information about the Tamil Tigers and its activities. It made this material available to the respondent with an explanatory memorandum. The difficulty in assembling the material about the Tamil Tigers and the respondent caused a major part of the long delay in the determination of this aspect of the respondent’s appeal to the Authority.
[16] The information referred to what the Authority in its decision described as a “consistent and flagrant pattern of human rights abuses” committed by the Tamil Tigers.11 Its comprehensive decision contains summaries of more than 20 atrocities including attacks on large groups of civilians, on unarmed police or military personnel or involving assassinations. These incidents took place between 1985 and 1996. At the hearing, the respondent accepted that he knew the Tamil Tigers were responsible for such incidents and that they were typical of what had been happening throughout that period.
[17] The respondent in his evidence
denied that he knew he was on a
Tamil Tigers’ vessel before the final voyage commenced. The Authority
was, however, also provided with an account of events on the Yahata
from a crew member who had been an oiler, and thus subordinate to the
respondent, during the last voyage. The oiler had proved himself to be
a loyal and dedicated member of the Tamil Tigers before taking up his
position on the Yahata. He
said that he knew at the time that the
vessel was carrying arms and explosives for the Tamil Tigers.
[18] In its decision the
Authority found that the Yahata
was part of
the Tamil Tigers’ fleet and was used to smuggle arms, ammunition and
explosives into Sri Lanka for use by the Tamil Tigers. It was
undertaking such an operation when it was intercepted on its final
voyage. The respondent’s assertion that he did not know of these
matters was disbelieved. The Authority concluded that the Tamil Tigers
would not have put a person whose loyalty was uncertain into such a
responsible position on the vessel as that held by the respondent,
particularly on a voyage carrying the Tigers’ former second-in-command
and a cargo of munitions. His assertion that after six months on the
vessel he did not know the nature of its cargo on the last voyage was
inherently implausible. The Authority said that the impression given by
the respondent when questioned was that he was a witness who was
turning a blind eye to the obvious. This related to his claim that he
knew nothing of his fellow crew members’ backgrounds, that he had never
been asked if he supported the Tamil Tigers and that he had no grounds
for suspicion until Kittu arrived on board.
[19] The Authority inferred that the respondent’s denials were made to cover up the fact that he was a trusted supporter of the Tamil Tigers who was willingly assisting the organisation to smuggle war material into Sri Lanka through his skills and ability to ensure continuing propulsion of the Yahata. It concluded that he knew that the arms which he was helping smuggle into Sri Lanka would be as likely to be used by the Tamil Tigers in perpetrating further human rights abuses as in conventional warfare against the Sri Lankan army. This showed he was dedicated to the aims, objectives and methods of the Tamil Tigers. Smuggling arms and explosives was vital for its aims. The Authority found that there were serious reasons for considering that the respondent was a knowing and willing accomplice and party to the commission of war crimes by the Tamil Tigers. It followed that he was excluded from refugee status under art 1F(a) of the Convention.
[20] The Authority then went on to
consider the application of art
1F(b) in relation to the respondent’s involvement in the sinking of the
Yahata. The Supreme Court of
India had decided that he was party to the
intentional destruction by fire of a vessel carrying explosives and
convicted him of serious crimes. That act had endangered
the lives of those on board the Yahata,
the members of the naval
boarding party and others on navy and coastguard vessels nearby.12
[21] The Authority decided that these acts were not committed for a political purpose but, rather, to prevent seizure of the vessel and cargo by the Indian Government. The Authority concluded that he had committed serious non-political crimes within the exclusionary provision of art 1F(b).
High Court and
Court of Appeal judgments
[22] An application to
the High Court for judicial review of the
Authority’s decision was dismissed by Courtney J. The Judge held that
the Authority was entitled to find, in relation to the last voyage,
that it was implausible that the Tamil Tigers would have accepted as an
officer someone of whose loyalty they were at all uncertain. It
followed that, in assuming the position of Chief Engineer on the last
voyage, the respondent was a willing participant in an attempt to
smuggle arms and explosives into Sri Lanka. This evidenced his
dedication to the Tamil Tigers’ objectives and methods and directly
assisted them. The subsequent sinking of the vessel with the armaments
did not detract from that. The respondent provided assistance, knowing
of the real possibility the armaments might be used against civilians.13
[23] On the basis of Canadian
authority,14 Her Honour held:15
[24] Applying this test to the
findings of fact and inferences drawn by
the Authority, the Judge decided it had been open to it to conclude
that the respondent was complicit in crimes against humanity committed
by the Tamil Tigers.
[25] In relation to the
Authority’s finding that the respondent had
“committed a serious non-political crime” outside the country of
refuge, Courtney J was concerned that the judgment of the Supreme Court
of India did not make specific reference to the position of the
respondent, nor indeed that of any individual accused in relation to
the criminal act of destroying the Yahata.
The Judge was also troubled
that the Supreme Court’s conclusions on guilt were expressed in terms
that were not consistent with the criminal standard of proof. The
Authority did not, however, have the evidence that was before the
Supreme Court and was entitled to take into account its earlier finding
that the respondent was a loyal supporter of the Tamil Tigers who was
on board the Yahata with
knowledge of its cargo. In those
circumstances, the Supreme Court of India’s decision, coupled with the
Authority’s findings, had provided a sufficient basis for the
conclusion that there was serious reason to consider the respondent had
committed the serious crimes for which he was convicted. The
respondent’s application for review was, for these reasons, dismissed.16
[26] The respondent then appealed to the Court of Appeal.
[27] The Court of Appeal’s approach
differed from that of the High
Court.17 Pointing out that the international crimes
with which art
1F(a) was concerned were “as defined in the international instruments”
making provision for them, it saw the principal source of reference as
being those instruments. Hammond J, who delivered the leading judgment,
said that the starting point was the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court18 which made specific reference to
crimes against
humanity and set out principles of international criminal liability.
The Court said that complicity in the criminal conduct of others could
be ascertained by reference to principles of joint criminal enterprise
liability as laid down by international tribunals.
[28] The Court of Appeal
proceeded on this basis to determine whether
there were “serious reasons for considering” that the respondent was
complicit in crimes against humanity or a serious non-political crime.
Hammond J rejected the Crown’s contention that the respondent’s
participation in the final voyage, knowing of the real possibility that
the explosives and weapons would be used against civilians, met the
“serious reasons” test. The physical presence of the respondent on the
vessel, together with the implausibility of his account of how he came
to be there, was not enough to justify the inference that he had
intended to perpetrate a crime against humanity in terms of joint
criminal enterprise liability.19
[29] Arnold J concurred, holding that the “serious reasons for considering” test required that it be shown the respondent had contributed to the illegitimate designs of the Tamil Tigers with the intention of furthering them. A finding that he knew the weapons were as likely as not to be used for that purpose did not meet the standard.20 Baragwanath J agreed, observing that “there was at most an unquantified possibility that the armaments might be used for [the illegitimate] purpose”.21 Baragwanath J also took issue with the inferences drawn about the respondent’s knowledge by the Authority which the High Court had upheld.
[30] The Court was accordingly unanimous that it had not been shown that there were serious reasons for considering that the respondent had committed a crime against humanity in terms of art 1F(a) of the Convention.
[31] On the second issue, of whether the respondent had committed a serious non-political crime at the time of the sinking of the Yahata, Hammond J was satisfied that at all times the respondent’s purpose was the political one of achieving a separate Tamil state. It was artificial to treat the destruction of the vessel to prevent seizure of its cargo as not being closely and directly linked with or as falling outside that purpose.22 Baragwanath J agreed.23 Arnold J, however, held that the scuttling of the Yahata was not a political act as it was not sufficiently close to the respondent’s political purpose. But both Arnold J and Baragwanath J also saw no basis in the evidence, and in particular the judgments of the Courts of India, implicating the respondent in the sinking of the vessel.24Nature
of refugee decision-making
[32] When incorporating
in the Convention a provision excluding certain
persons from holding refugee status, whatever the strength of their
claims to be at risk of persecution, the state parties required the
countries in which refuge was being claimed to assess whether the
claimant was disqualified by previous wrongful conduct. Under art 1F(a)
that test concerns conduct involving commission of specified
international crimes. Under art 1F(b) it is conduct amounting to
serious criminality more generally. Article 1F(c) is concerned with a
claimant’s guilt of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the
United Nations and has not been raised in this case.
[33] The purpose of the exclusionary
provision was to ensure that the
Convention was accepted by state parties and to maintain its integrity
over time. As Professor Hathaway has put it:25
[34] A standard is set by the
Convention for what is required to
establish that a claimant is excluded from the protection of the
Convention because he or she may have committed crimes or acts
described in art 1F. The degree to which decision-makers must be
persuaded is that they are satisfied that there are “serious reasons
for considering that” the person concerned has committed such a crime.
Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that in New Zealand, as in many
countries, decisions on refugee status are not made in court
proceedings.
[35] The Convention does not
stipulate any process by which such
determinations are to be made by state parties. To meet its Convention
obligations, New Zealand has enacted legislation that provides for an
administrative process. The initial determination of refugee status is
made by a refugee status officer who is a government official
designated to undertake that role.26 A person whose
claim is declined
may appeal to the Authority.27 The Authority is an
independent
specialist body with inquisitorial powers. It may “seek information
from any source” or request the chief executive of the Department of
Labour to seek and provide it with relevant information.28
Although it
is not a commission of inquiry, it has the powers of one under the
Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908 and may make such inquiries and obtain
such reports as it considers necessary.29 In doing so
it will consider
and may build on information obtained by the refugee status officer at
the earlier stage. The Authority is not bound by any rules of evidence
but may inform itself in such manner as it thinks fit.30
At both levels
these decision-makers must act in a manner that is consistent with New
Zealand’s obligations under the Convention.
[36] The inquisitorial nature of the process is further reflected in the language of the statutory provisions concerning the procedure on appeal. It is “the responsibility of an appellant to establish the claim” before the Authority.31 As the Court of Appeal pointed out in Jiao v Refugee Status Appeals Authority,32 Parliament has avoided the common law terms “onus” or “burden” by using “responsibility”. Likewise it has used “establish” instead of “prove”.
[37] There are special reasons for
the legislature to prefer an
inquisitorial process for refugee status determinations. There are
particular problems in obtaining evidence on the crucial questions and
determining its reliability. The position was
well expressed by Professor Houle in the context of determinations by
the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Canadian Immigration and
Refugee Board:33
The Authority
itself has discussed the evidential difficulties it
faces, and the practical limits on its process:34
In this context,
inferences have to be drawn both as to the credibility
of the claimant concerning matters of fact and in the evaluation
required to decide if a claimant is entitled to protection as a refugee
under Convention provisions.
[38] The Convention drafters
recognised there would be inherent
evidential difficulties in fact finding in relation to events addressed
by art 1F. Their adoption of the standard of “serious reasons to
consider” that a claimant had committed the specified crimes, or was
guilty of other acts referred to in art 1F(c), was a policy choice as
to the degree of satisfaction to be required of decision-makers on
refugee status. That formulation met the aims of parties to the
Convention and was consistent with a fair and workable procedure for
making decisions under art 1F. Parliament has incorporated it in the
process by requiring that decision-makers act consistently with
Convention obligations.
[39] Standards of persuasion
that apply to ordinary judicial
proceedings do not provide helpful comparisons or analogies in applying
the standard. Article 1F is not concerned with individual
accountability of applicants but with whether they are excluded from
refugee status under the Convention. This is consistent with the
inquisitorial nature of the role of the Authority. The “serious reasons
to consider” standard must be applied on its own terms read in the
Convention context. As Sedley LJ has observed, in a passage approved by
the United Kingdom Supreme Court, art 1F:35
Application
of art 1F:
(a)
Factual conclusions
[40] In this case the Authority tested the credibility of the respondent’s evidence by questioning him and assessing his answers against wide ranging information it had gathered concerning the internal conflict in Sri Lanka. The assessment also took into account the statement of the oiler who was a member of the Yahata’s crew on its last voyage. That man acknowledged that he had known the Yahata was carrying arms and explosives for the Tamil Tigers on that voyage and that he had proved himself a loyal and dedicated member of the Tamil Tigers before coming on board the Yahata.
[41] In the Court of Appeal, Hammond
J and Arnold J both accepted that
the appeal should be decided on the basis of the Authority’s factual
findings. Mr Harrison QC for the respondent has, however, challenged
them in this Court, adopting and relying on critical comments made by
Baragwanath J.36
[42] Baragwanath J considered
that the Authority’s finding that 110
tonnes of armaments had been loaded on the vessel for its final voyage
was based on unreliable evidence. As well, he said, it was not
established that the respondent knew the Tamil Tigers owned the vessel
before the last voyage. His Honour declined to accept that the Tamil
Tigers would not have appointed the respondent to be the Chief Engineer
unless he had previously proved to the organisation that he could be
trusted with that level of responsibility.
[43] Disagreeing with Baragwanath J, we see no basis for any departure from the approach of the Authority to fact finding in this case. The Authority’s approach was a straightforward application of its specialised function to test and evaluate the primary evidence in the course of the inquisitorial process required by the Act. That involved the application of the standard set by the “serious reasons to consider” test in art 1F of the Convention as required. The Authority’s method recognises that the Convention places on an applicant the responsibility of establishing a claim to refugee status, which will include, when the circumstances raise the issue, establishing that an applicant is not excluded by art 1F.
[44] The inapplicability of rules of
evidence gives the Authority a
broad discretion as to what material it obtains and uses in its
consideration of a claim. A realistic and careful approach to that
material must be taken by the Authority, having regard to the
evidential gaps and other difficulties that refugee claimants face in
making out their claims. A proper analysis and evaluation is required,
in the course of which a legitimate and important consideration will
often be whether what the applicant says in evidence relevant to his or
her status is credible and plausible in the circumstances. In reaching
factual conclusions the Authority must usually assess the credibility
of those giving evidence. This will itself often require evaluation of
the reliability and value of independent sources of information
relevant to that credibility that come before the Authority. The
overall factual assessment on art 1F issues is in the end to be made on
the “serious reasons to consider” standard stipulated by the Convention.
[45] We are satisfied that the
Authority’s factual evaluation in this
case was in accordance with the required approach which we have
identified. In the absence of a
right of appeal, it is not the role of a court in a judicial review
proceeding to undertake a broad reappraisal of the factual findings of
the Tribunal. We are satisfied that the Authority’s factual findings
were within its powers in that evidence was available to support its
factual conclusions, and it has not been shown those findings were
unreasonable. Indeed, they seem well justified.
(b)
Complicity in a
crime against humanity
[46] The Authority’s
findings of the respondent’s involvement in
supporting Tamil Tigers’ operations were largely based on the
circumstances of the final voyage of the Yahata. The Authority
apparently accepted that it had not been shown that he was implicated
in any armaments and munitions shipments by the Yahata during the
earlier period of his engagement. The general information it had
obtained indicated that 95 per cent of the operations of such ships
involved legitimate commercial activity. The next matter to consider is
whether on the factual conclusions there are serious reasons for
considering that the respondent had committed a “crime against
humanity”.37
[47] Under art 1F(a), the meaning
of “crime against humanity” must be
ascertained from definitions in international instruments drawn up to
make provision for such a crime. As the United Kingdom Supreme Court
has recently pointed out, the sources for ascertaining that meaning are
not confined to international instruments existing at the time of
making of the Convention.38 As earlier mentioned, the
Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court, which came into force on 1 July 2002,
is a recent international instrument which directly addresses the
principles that govern liability for international crimes including
those of particular relevance to this case. It is appropriate to refer
to it for authoritative assistance on what is a “crime against
humanity”.
[48] Article 7 of the Rome
Statute defines “crimes against humanity” as
meaning any of the listed proscribed criminal acts, including murder,
“when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”.39 An
“[a]ttack directed against any civilian population” means a course of
conduct involving the multiple commission of the proscribed acts
against a civilian population pursuant to or in furtherance of a state
or organisational policy to commit such attack.40
[49] In its decision, the Authority
summarised more than 20 instances
of attacks by the Tamil Tigers between May 1985 and April 1996, mostly
against groups of civilians. In the instances of Tamil Tiger crimes
cited by the Authority, the common underlying offence is the proscribed
act of murder. It is plain that those who were directly involved caused
death and intended to do so. Both physical and mental elements of the
underlying proscribed act of a crime against humanity committed by the
perpetrators are made out in these instances. It is also plain that the
instances concerned demonstrate a course of conduct involving multiple
proscribed acts of violence by the perpetrators in furtherance of the
Tamil Tigers’ policy of committing such attacks. The acts were part of
an attack that was widespread because of the scale, frequency and
seriousness of the incidents involving a multiplicity of victims. It
was systematic because the incidents were part of an organised and
regular pattern of violence. Further analysis is not required of the
underlying acts by the Tamil Tigers. There has been no dispute in this
proceeding that they constituted crimes against humanity.
[50] The Crown next contends that
the respondent has himself committed
crimes against humanity within art 1F(a) of the Convention because of
his complicity in these crimes of the Tamil Tigers. The Crown accepted
in this Court that the respondent’s conduct fell short of being an
attempt in terms of art 25.3(f) of the Rome Statute.
[51] It is well established
that a person may commit crimes against
humanity as an accomplice without personally undertaking the criminal
acts effecting such crimes. What, however, has long been uncertain is
the degree to which the person must be complicit in the perpetrator’s
actions to become liable as an accomplice for such an international
crime.
[52] Articles 25 and 30 of the Rome
Statute prescribe when persons have
individual criminal responsibility. Article 25.3, relevantly, provides
in relation to complicit liability:
[53] Article 25 must be read with
art 30 which addresses the necessary
mental element and provides:
[54] Individual criminal responsibility under art 25.3(d) articulates a concept of joint enterprise liability in response to the complexity often found when acts which are international crimes are committed by a group or groups of persons, each playing different roles. Joint criminal enterprise liability is a form of liability which covers all such participants in a common criminal plan. Under it, all those taking part in such a plan, being aware of its purpose and character and sharing criminal intent, will be liable.41 This form of liability is drawn from principles of national and international case law which crystallised as customary international law in the post-World War II period. The leading modern international law authority on joint criminal enterprise is Prosecutor v Tadic,42 where the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia synthesised the post-World War II domestic and international jurisprudence.
[55] Professor Cassese emphasises
that this is a form of criminal
liability rather than itself constituting a crime. The doctrine ensures
that “individual culpability is not obscured in the fog of collective
criminality and accountability evaded.”43 Professor
Cassese identifies
three categories of joint criminal enterprise liability:44
[56] The present case involves the
third category of responsibility
which Professor Cassese says:45
[57] The third category of joint
criminal enterprise is justified by
considerations of public policy. There is a “need to protect society
against persons who band together to engage in criminal enterprises and
who persist in their criminal conduct though they foresee that more
serious crimes outside the common enterprise may be committed”.46 In a
domestic context, Lord Steyn47 has recognised that
the criminal
culpability lies in participating in the criminal enterprise foreseeing
that another may commit a criminal act. He observed:48
[58] A line of Canadian Federal
Court of Appeal authority addressing
art 1F attempted to define what was necessary to give rise to joint
enterprise liability beyond formal membership of, or an association
with, an organisation that is engaged in committing international
crimes.
[59] In 1992 that Court, in Ramirez v Canada (Minister of Employment
and Immigration),49 expressed the test for
joint enterprise (or
complicit) liability in terms of crimes involving “a shared common
purpose and the knowledge that all of the parties in question may have
of it”. In 1996 the same Court, in Bazargan
v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), elaborated:50
[60] In Sumaida v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),51 the Federal Court of Appeal held that liability on the basis of complicity did not require a causal connection with particular acts of the principal perpetrator of the international crimes. In the international law context, there was no requirement that the crimes committed by an organisation be necessarily and directly attributable to specific acts or omissions of the person concerned.
[61] The Supreme Court of Canada in Mugesera v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),52 referring to international jurisprudence, held that it was “well settled” that an accused must have knowledge of the event constituting the crime and must know that his or her acts comprise part of that event or at least take the risk that his or her acts will comprise part of it.53
[62] It was on the basis of this line of cases that the Authority held that the respondent’s actions amounted to complicity in the crimes against humanity committed by the Tamil Tigers. The High Court also relied on these cases.
[63] The Court of Appeal was of the
view that the participation of the
respondent in the final voyage of the Yahata,
knowing of the real
possibility that its cargo of armaments and explosives would be used
against civilians, fell short of making the respondent complicit in a
crime against humanity. It was not sufficient that the respondent knew
the weapons were as likely as not to be used for that purpose.54
[64] In his reasons in the
Court of Appeal Hammond J adopted the
approach taken to joint enterprise liability under art 25.3(d) of the
Rome Statute by Toulson LJ in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales
in R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department.55
In determining whether there were serious reasons to consider that a
claimant had committed an international crime under art 1F(a) it had to
be established whether the claimant had participated in the furtherance
of a joint criminal purpose in a way that made a significant
contribution to a common design involving commission of such a crime.
Becoming a member of an organisation that was involved in such crimes,
and participating in military actions against the government, was not
on its own enough. Rather, there had to be serious reasons for
considering that the claimant was a party to the design who had
participated in furthering the joint criminal purpose, making a
significant contribution to the commission of the crime.
[65] Arnold J agreed with Hammond J. Both concluded that the Authority’s findings concerning the participation of the respondent on the last voyage did not meet the requirement for joint enterprise liability of the respondent in relation to intention to further a crime under the Rome Statute. In particular, it was not shown that the respondent’s participation was with the intention of furthering a crime against humanity.
[66] Since the Court of Appeal’s judgment in this case the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has delivered judgment in an appeal by the Crown against the English Court of Appeal’s judgment in R (JS (Sri Lanka)).56 While agreeing with much of the lower Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court differed from it on aspects of joint enterprise liability that are directly relevant to the respondent’s position.
[67] In the leading judgment, Lord
Brown JSC said that Toulson LJ’s
approach had been too narrow in its approach to joint enterprise
liability. It was not necessary to show that the claimant was engaged
in a criminal enterprise of a kind that would lead to conviction under
domestic criminal law. The focus should rather be on the
wider concept of common design such as the accomplishment of an
organisation’s purpose by whatever means are necessary, including the
commission of crimes covered by art 1F:57
[68] In expressing
his agreement generally, and with this passage in
particular, Lord Hope DPSC emphasised the words “in a significant way”
and “will in fact further that purpose”.58 Joint
enterprise liability
under the Rome Statute did not require participation in the criminal
act. The Deputy President59 adopted a passage in a
judgment of the
German Federal Administrative Court60 in further
explanation of the
underlying concept:61
Both Lord Brown and
Lord Hope emphasised the importance of the facts of
each case and of evidence of actual involvement of the claimant, rather
than an assumption of it derived from membership of the organisation
perpetrating the crimes.62 Lord Kerr JSC made similar
observations,
referring to the need to concentrate on the actual role played by the
particular person, taking all material aspects of that role into
account so as to decide whether the required degree of participation is
established.63
[69] Lord Brown saw the
requirement of a mental element for joint
enterprise liability under art 25 as:64
[70] We agree with these
observations. Refugee status decision-makers
should adopt the same approach to the application of joint enterprise
liability principles when ascertaining if there are serious reasons to
consider that a claimant seeking recognition of refugee status has
committed a crime or an act within art 1F through being complicit in
such crimes or acts perpetrated by others. That approach fully reflects
the principle that those who contribute significantly to the commission
of an international crime with the stipulated intention, although not
direct perpetrators of it, are personally responsible for the crime.
This principle is now expressed in arts 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute
and was earlier well established in customary international law. Its
application recognises the importance of domestic courts endeavouring
to develop and maintain a common approach to the meaning of the
language of an international instrument which is given effect as
domestic law in numerous jurisdictions of state parties.
(c) Was any
crime against
humanity
committed?
[71] We return to the Authority’s findings of fact in relation to the respondent’s conduct as Chief Engineer of the Yahata during its last voyage, thereby being prepared to contribute to criminal activities of the Tamil Tigers within art 1F. At all times he knew the vessel was transporting its cargo of armaments and munitions for use by the Tamil Tigers. By applying his expertise in a pivotal role for the voyage he was making a significant contribution to the Tamil Tigers’ activities. He knew of the crimes against humanity that were being committed by that organisation and must have foreseen the likelihood that the arms, if delivered, would be used by the Tamil Tigers to commit future offences. His assistance, albeit in advance of operations, would further that purpose. It matters not on a test based on joint criminal enterprise principles that the actual cargo for the voyage might equally have been used only for legitimate purposes in military operations. The respondent took the risk that the armaments would be used to commit a crime against humanity. The Authority was entitled to hold that all this established the necessary elements of the respondent’s personal responsibility as part of a joint criminal enterprise under arts 25 and 30 of the Rome Statute.
[72] It does not, however, necessarily follow from this reasoning that the respondent has actually committed crimes against humanity. The difficulty lies in identifying criminal acts of the Tamil Tigers in which his conduct made him complicit.
[73] The Authority’s findings concerned the Tamil Tigers’ criminal operations undertaken between May 1985 and April 1996. This includes the periods before and after the last voyage of the Yahata which took place between 4 and 16 January 1993. No findings were made concerning the earlier period of six months that the respondent spent on the Yahata. It is not appropriate for this Court to reach conclusions concerning this period. As to the last voyage, the munitions and armaments on board the Yahata were all destroyed, along with the vessel, on 16 January 1993. The support given to the Tamil Tigers’ operations by the respondent during the last voyage did not result in any actual use of the weapons concerned, let alone for any proscribed purpose.
[74] In his submissions for the Attorney-General, Mr Carter relied on passages in the Supreme Court’s judgment in R (JS (Sri Lanka)),65 but these were addressed to elements of an accomplice’s conduct giving rise to joint enterprise liability. They were not addressed to the acts of the principal perpetrator with which the accomplice was said to be associated.
[75] It is inherent in the notion of criminal complicity that liability arises only once a primary criminal act has been committed, with which the accomplice has become associated by reason of his or her conduct.66 There must be “a predicate offence committed by someone other than the accomplice”,67 whose conduct itself will not usually amount to an autonomous separate crime, because its criminality lies in facilitating the criminal enterprise of another. This reflects the general position in domestic criminal law where an accomplice’s acts are not usually criminal in themselves and become so only because they made the accomplice a party to the principal’s completed crime.
[76] As Mr Harrison QC, for the respondent, pointed out, the concept of joint enterprise liability being for a completed offence committed by someone other than the accomplice is reflected in the language of art 25.3(d) of the Rome Statute. That provision is expansive in relation to modes of participation stipulated in preceding sub-paragraphs. It speaks of “[i]n any other way contribut[ing] to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime”.68 But the latter part of that phrase requires that some crime has been committed or attempted. Had those drafting the Rome Statute been of a mind to expand joint enterprise liability to catch conduct where an actual or attempted crime does not eventuate, they could easily have provided for that in art 25.3(d). They did not do so. Nothing equivalent to the common law crime of conspiracy is included in the Rome Statute.
[77] Both the Authority and Courtney J saw it as sufficient that the respondent was complicit in the Tamil Tigers’ crimes generally committed. The respondent’s assistance during the last voyage, knowing that the Yahata carried explosives and weapons likely to be used against civilians, sufficed.
[78] While the Yahata may have provided support for the ability of the Tamil Tigers to commit crimes over the period prior to its last voyage, we are not satisfied that on the Authority’s findings there are serious reasons to believe the respondent provided support prior to the last voyage. His conduct during the last voyage, while capable of doing so, is not shown to have supported the commission of any completed crimes covered by art 1F(a).
[79] Although joint enterprise liability makes liable those who contribute to the commission of crimes by assisting or contributing to a common plan or purpose, it is concerned with holding responsible those who in that way contribute to crimes that are actually committed. The link between the respondent’s conduct on the Yahata in 1993 and crimes committed or attempted between 1985 and 1996 is too tenuous to provide serious reasons for considering he was complicit in that offending. Had it been shown that he participated in voyages where armaments were delivered to the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka and subsequently that organisation committed crimes against humanity, the position would be different.
[80] But as the evidence stands it
must follow that the respondent is
not disqualified from being a refugee by virtue of art 1F(a) of the
Refugee Convention.
(d)
Were serious non-political crimes
committed?
[81] Under art 1F(b) of
the Convention the respondent is excluded from
holding refugee status if he committed a serious non-political crime
before coming to New Zealand as the country of refuge. The conduct in
issue is the actions of those on the Yahata
involved in the scuttling
of the vessel. The Crown’s submission is that there are serious reasons
for considering that the respondent was a party to or complicit in
those crimes. It is not in dispute that the destruction of the vessel
was a serious crime. The issues in this part of the appeal are whether
that criminal action was of a political nature and whether the
respondent was shown to have been complicit in it.
[82] In excluding from refugee status those who have committed a serious non-political crime, art 1F(b) reflects two Convention purposes. The first is to ensure those who commit serious non-political crimes do not avoid legitimate prosecution by availing themselves of Convention protection. The language of the provision cannot, however, be read as confining exclusion to those who are fugitives from justice. A further purpose is to protect the security of states in which refuge is sought by providing an exception from Convention obligations in respect of those with a propensity to commit serious non-political crimes.69
[83] The Authority found that the appellant was party to the intentional destruction by fire of a vessel carrying explosives in circumstances where danger to the lives of those on board the nearby Indian naval and coastguard vessels was likely.70 Other findings concerning the firing of weapons at the Indian vessels from the Yahata were not relied on in the Authority’s determination that the respondent had committed a serious non-political crime.
[84] There is no doubt that, if the Authority’s factual findings concerning the destruction of the Yahata are upheld, there were crimes committed which were serious crimes in terms of art 1F(b). The respondent was held to be implicated in the deliberate burning of the vessel, putting others in great danger. The serious criminal nature of the conduct has not been an issue in the appeal or earlier in the proceedings. The real issue on this part of the appeal arises from the Crown’s contention that the Court of Appeal was in error in concluding both that the crimes were political and that the respondent had not been implicated in the criminal conduct.
[85] Extradition law has had a
political crimes exception since the
nineteenth century. It was developed in many countries through
inclusion of provisions in bilateral extradition treaties.
Historically, states often wanted to have flexibility in cases where a
request by another state for extradition to enforce its criminal law
might be seen as a pretext for persecution of a political dissident by
an unfair trial and/or excessive punishment. This exception from the
obligation to extradite reflected the respect felt in many countries
for those who sought refuge from dictatorships, even if the political
crimes they had committed were serious.71
Historically, it was also
seen as generally unlikely that in the different political situation of
the country of asylum the dissidents would repeat their criminal
conduct.
[86] Courts have frequently
drawn on extradition law over the years to
determine what is a non-political crime. But it should not be thought
that the Refugee Convention was simply adopting that concept in its
historic form in art 1F. By 1951 the romantic perception of the refugee
who had committed serious crimes was out of date and it was recognised
that:72
[87] Extradition involves a process of removal under statutory powers on the application of a foreign government. The process is in accordance with a treaty. There is nothing in the text of the Convention that refers to extradition law or indicates an intention that a non-political crime under art 1F(b) is the same concept. There is no definition of when a serious crime is “non-political”. The focus of the Convention is on the seriousness of the crime as well as whether it was of a non-political nature. It is not on whether particular conduct could be the subject of extradition proceedings.73 Nor is the gravity of the offending to be balanced against the risk of persecution if the claimant is returned home.74
[88] Bearing in mind the wider
purposes of the Convention, overseas
jurisdictions and academic commentators have not given the concept of a
“serious non-political crime” a broad meaning that would catch all
serious criminal offending which had some element of political
motivation. In this respect, valuable guidance on whether a crime is
political has been given by Professor Goodwin-Gill in a passage often
cited by courts applying art 1F:75
[89] To similar effect is Lord
Lloyd’s description of a political crime
in T v Immigration Officer:76
[90] How the context, methods, motivation and proportionality of a crime relate to a claimant’s political objectives are accordingly all important in determination of whether a serious crime committed by a claimant was of a political nature. This requires an exercise of judgment on whether, in all the circumstances, the character of the offending is predominantly political or is rather that of an ordinary common law crime.
[91] In the course of this
evaluation by decision-makers in New Zealand
it must, however, be borne in mind that while politically motivated
violent crime is not part of our history, violence has been an incident
of political action in many other countries. As Kirby J has pointed
out:77
[92] At all relevant times the Tamil Tigers was an organisation having the goals of self-determination for Tamils and securing an independent Tamil state in northeast Sri Lanka. The principal objective was to induce the government of Sri Lanka to concede such political change. These characteristics made the Tamil Tigers a political organisation notwithstanding its use, at times, of proscribed methods of advancing its cause. That much is not in dispute.
[93] The respondent’s motivation in becoming involved in the Tamil Tigers’ activities was plainly to give his support to that organisation’s political objectives. He provided it with the benefit of his practical experience as a marine engineer to facilitate the moving of munitions into Sri Lanka for the benefit of the Tamil Tigers’ operations.
[94] The criminal conduct in issue took place in the course of a voyage intended to support the armed capacity of the Tamil Tigers. It involved the deliberate and illegal scuttling of the Yahata while laden with munitions. We can disregard the earlier firing upon the Indian vessels as there is no finding the respondent was implicated in that. The respondent was found by the Authority to be implicated as a party to the intentional destruction but not to have the same culpability as the primary offenders who were members of the military unit led by Kittu.
[95] The Authority found that the destruction endangered the lives of the Indian sailors. They were of course from a different nation to that which was the target of the Tamil Tigers’ operations and the engagement with them was, no doubt, not part of the original intention of the Tamil Tigers in relation to the Yahata’s voyage. But while the sailors were put in danger, the criminal conduct to which the respondent was found to be a party did not involve and cannot be equated to indiscriminate violence against civilians which would make the link between the criminal conduct and any overall political purpose too remote.
[96] The Authority decided that the act of destruction of the vessel and its cargo was committed to prevent its seizure by the Indian authorities. The Authority also considered that this made the criminal conduct non-political. But the purpose of transporting munitions on the Yahata should properly be regarded as directed to securing the political aims of the Tamil Tigers. Being a party to the act of destruction to prevent their seizure by Indian authorities unsympathetic to the Tamil Tigers must be seen as sufficiently connected to the political aims to be within them. The scuttling was not an act of an indiscriminate kind such as should be regarded as separating that link.
[97] In these circumstances we are satisfied that the connection between the respondent’s crimes and the political purposes he sought to serve was sufficient to result in his crimes being of a political nature.
[98] It is therefore unnecessary to go on to address the question of whether the Authority’s factual finding that the respondent was implicated in the acts of destruction was justified. The Court of Appeal took the view it was not, differing from the High Court. Courtney J in her judgment had expressed concerns over aspects the Supreme Court of India’s reasoning in convicting the respondent and other crew members, saying:78
Solicitors for Appellant: Crown
Law (Wellington)
Solicitors for First Respondent: Witten-Hannah
Howard (North Shore City)
1 United Nations
Convention Relating
to the Status of Refugees (adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22
April 1954).
2 Refugee Appeals No 74796 and No 74797
RSAA Wellington, 19 April 2006,
RPG Haines QC and M Hodgen.
3 X v Refugee Status Appeals
Authority HC Auckland CIV-2006-404-4213,
17 December 2007.
4 Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals
Authority [2009] NZCA 488, [2010] 2
NZLR 73.
5 State v Jayachandra [1997] INSC 288
(Criminal Appeal No 823 of 1996).
6
Immigration Act 1987, s 129.
7 Ibid, s
129E(1).
8 Ibid, s 129O.
9 Ibid, ss 129A
and 129D. The text of the Convention is set out in sch
6.
10 Set out in
[1] above.
11 At
[24].
12 At
[140] of the Refugee Status Appeal Authority’s decision.
13 At
[85]–[86].
14 The main
decisions are discussed at [58]–[62] of this judgment.
15 At [81].
16 An
application for review by the respondent’s wife succeeded and the
High Court remitted her refugee status application back to the
Authority. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown’s appeal against
that determination. The Crown has not sought to challenge in this Court
the judgment in favour of the wife.
17 The Court
of Appeal adopted the approach taken to art 1F(a) by the
English Court of Appeal in a judgment delivered after the High Court’s
judgment in this case: R (JS (Sri
Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 364, [2010] 2 WLR 17.
18 Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July
1998, entered into force 1 July 2002).
19 At
[111].
20 At
[169]–[171].
21 At [279].
22 At
[121]–[123].
23 At [310].
24 At
[180] and [309] respectively.
25 James
Hathaway The Law of Refugee
Status (Butterworths Canada Ltd,
1991) at 214 (footnotes omitted).
26
Immigration Act 1987, ss 129B and 129E.
27 Ibid, s
129O.
28 Ibid, s
129P(2)(a) and (4).
29 Ibid, sch
3C, cll 7 and 9.
30 Ibid, sch
3C, cl 9.
31 Ibid, s
129P(1).
32 Jiao v Refugee Status Appeals
Authority [2003] NZAR 647 (CA) at [23]
per Keith J.
33
France Houle “Pitfalls for Administrative Tribunals in Relying on
Formal Common Law Rules of Evidence” in Robin Creyke (ed) Tribunals in
the Common Law World (The Federation Press, Sydney, 2008) 104 at
107.
34 Refugee Appeal No 72668/01
[2002] NZAR 649 (RSAA) at [45].
35 In Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2009] EWCA
Civ 222, (2009) Imm AR 624 at [33], cited in R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 15,
[2010] 2 WLR
766 at [39] per Lord Brown JSC.
36 At
[288]–[307].
37
While the area covered by war crimes and crimes against humanity can
overlap, it is sufficient to decide this case solely on the issue of
whether a crime against humanity was committed.
38 R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department
[2010] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 WLR 766 at [2].
39
Article 7.1.
40 Article
7.2(a).
41
Antonio Cassese International
Criminal Law (2nd ed, Oxford
University Press, Oxford, 2008) at 190–191.
42 Prosecutor v Tadic (ICTY,
Appeals Chamber) 38 ILM 1518 (1999) at
[185]–[229].
43 Antonio
Cassesse “Amicus Curiae Brief of Professor Antonio Cassese
and Members of the Journal of International Criminal Justice on Joint
Criminal Enterprise Doctrine” (2009) 20 Criminal Law Forum 289 at 294.
Professor Cassesse was a member of the ICTY Appeals Chamber panel which
decided Tadic.
44 Ibid, at
295.
45
Ibid, at 297.
46 Ibid, at
327.
47 In R v Powell (Anthony)
[1999] 1 AC 1 (HL) at 12–13.
48 At 14.
49 Ramirez v Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) (1992) 89
DLR (4th) 173 (FCA) at 180 per MacGuigan JA.
50 Bazargan v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) (1996)
205 NR 282 (FCA) at [11] per Decary J.
51 Sumaida v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration) (2000)
183 DLR (4th) 713 (FCA).
52 Mugesera v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 SCC
40, [2005] 2 SCR 100.
53 At [173]
and [176], citing jurisprudence from the International
Criminal Tribunals of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
54 As found by
the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, at [65].
55 R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State
for the Home Department
[2009] EWCA Civ 364, [2010] 2 WLR 17.
56 R (JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department
[2010] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 WLR 766.
57 At
[38].
58 At [49].
59 At
[47]–[48].
60 Germany’s
Supreme Administrative Court.
61 Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof
(Case No 10C 48.07) 14 October
2008, at [21].
62 At
[29]–[30] per Lord Brown and [44] per Lord Hope.
63 At [55].
64 At
[37].
65
Principally at [37]–[39] of Lord Brown’s judgment.
66 See
the decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v
Brdjanin Case No IT-99-36-A, 3 April
2007 (ICTY, Appeals Chamber) at [430] and the decisions of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Prosecutor v Akayesu Case
No ICTR-96-4-T2, (1998) 9 IHRR 608 at [528]–[530] and Prosecutor v
Musema Case No ICTR-96-13-T 27 January 2000 at [170]–[173].
67 Prosecutor v Akayesu Case
No ICTR-96-4-T2, (1998) 9 IHRR 608 at
[529].
68 Emphasis
added.
69 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs v Singh [2002]
HCA 7, (2002) 209 CLR 533 at [15] per Gleeson CJ.
70 At
[140]–[142].
71 T v Immigration Officer
[1996] AC 742 (HL) at 752–753 per Lord
Mustill.
72
Ibid, at 761.
73 Zrig v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) (2003) 229
DLR (4th) 235 (FCA) at [67] and [126].
74 S v Refugee Status Appeals
Authority [1998] 2 NZLR 291 (CA) at 297.
75 Guy
Goodwin-Gill and Jane McAdam The
Refugee in International Law
(3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007) at 177. This passage is
cited in T v Immigration Officer [1996]
AC 742 (HL) at 784 by Lord
Lloyd and in McMullen v Immigration
and Naturalization Service 788 F 2d
591 (9th Cir 1986) per Circuit Judge Wallace.
76 T v Immigration Officer [1996] AC
742 (HL) at 786–787.
77 Minister for Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2002]
HCA 7, (2002) 209 CLR 533 at [106] per Kirby J. See also Gleeson CJ at
[16].
78 At [98].