Excluding Undeserving Claimants: New Zealand's Interpretation of Art 1F(c) Refugee Convention

This paper reviews New Zealand judicial interpretation of the “acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations” as stated in art 1F(c) Refugee Convention, in the light of subsequent foreign jurisprudence. Article 1F excludes claimants from gaining refugee status under the Convention if there are “serious reasons for considering” they have committed a proscribed act. The ambiguous ambit of art 1F(c) had attracted little jurisprudence before the New Zealand authority’s 1995 decision in Refugee Appeal 2338/94. However, art 1F(c) jurisprudence has significantly increased in the face of new global issues such as terrorism, and an expanding United Nations mandate. This paper aims to aid future New Zealand courts in art 1F(c) cases, by assessing Refugee Appeal 2338/94 in light of the Canadian Supreme Court decision in Pushpanathan v Canada and the United Kingdom Supreme Court decision in Al Sirri and DD v Secretary of State for the Home Department.