legal opinion Auckland LAW 141 | complete solutionI Introduc*on
In COVID-1984 v WestCan, Roberts J makes mul2ple misapplica2ons of the law. Her
interpreta2on of public obliga2ons, public impact and misapplica2on of the
...
legal opinion Auckland LAW 141 | complete solutionI Introduc*on
In COVID-1984 v WestCan, Roberts J makes mul2ple misapplica2ons of the law. Her
interpreta2on of public obliga2ons, public impact and misapplica2on of the New Zealand Bill
of Rights Act would not likely be supported by the Court of Appeal.1 This essay will discuss
whether WestCan is performing a public func2on by hos2ng the frontline debate through an
analysis of Roberts J’s misapplica2ons of the law. Overall, the conclusion reached will be that
it is unlikely that WestCan would be found performing a public func2on, undermining
COVID-1984’s right to freedom of expression under s 14 NZBORA.
II Public Obliga*ons
A The Broadcas*ng Act2
Roberts J misapplied the law through the broad interpreta2on of sec2on 4(1)(d) of the
Broadcas2ng Act. In applying the principles in sec2on 4(1)(d), it must be analysed whether
COVID-1984 is a ‘significant point of view’.3 The term ‘significant’ can be interpreted in
multiple ways. COVID-1984 supports a meaning that represents something vastly different
from the rest of the society. As opposed to this meaning, the Court is likely to adopt a
definition of ‘significant’ as worthy of attention. This definition represents that COVID-1984
is unlikely to be worthy of attention because they have not any sizeable support or legitimate
evidence. The Court is likely to adopt this definition of significant, supporting that WestCan
does not owe a public obligation.
Such a wide interpretation of section 4(1)(d) would ease the opening of the ‘floodgates’
which is opposed to the desires of judges. The Court is unlikely to take a broad interpretation
of section 4(1)(d) to prevent excess litigation from occurring as many plaintiffs could argue
they are a ‘significant’ point of view based on Roberts J’s interpretation. Therefore, to prevent
a floodgates situation, the Court is unlikely to find WestCan owing a public duty.
B Misapplica*on of precedent
1 The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
2 The Broadcasting Act 1989.
3 The Broadcasting Act 1989, s 4 (1)(d)
[Show More]