Browsing by Author "Geiringer, Claudia"
Now showing 1 - 16 of 16
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item Restricted Authorisation of Abortion for a "Serious Danger to Mental Health": Would Practice Stand up to the Judicial Test?(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2011) Dixon, Amy; Geiringer, ClaudiaAbortion in New Zealand is a crime unless two certifying consultants (“consultants”) believe in good faith that the woman qualifies for an abortion under the exceptions in s 187A of the Crimes Act 1961. Despite this, New Zealand has a comparable rate of abortion to that in jurisdictions in which women have a guaranteed right to abortion. It would appear that the reason for this is the consultants’ application of the exception which allows for abortion where the continuance of pregnancy would result in “serious danger … to … mental health” (“mental health exception”). Ninety eight per cent of all abortions are authorised under this exception. These noteworthy statistics led Miller J, in the 2008 High Court decision of Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee (Right to Life), to observe that: “There is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants.” His Honour doubted that so many women would be able to establish that continuance of pregnancy would result in a risk of a recognised diagnosis of mental illness,6 which he assumed is what would constitute the necessary “serious danger … to … mental health”. Although the Court of Appeal has since ruled that Miller J’s observations have “no lawful effect”, the question of whether the consultants’ approach to the mental health exception is lawful remains up in the air. A future finding of unlawfulness could significantly impact current abortion availability. Some doubt remains as to whether consultants are applying the law as liberally as Miller J assumed. If his Honour’s doubts prove to be correct, however, current practice remains vulnerable to judicial determination of the scope of the mental health exception. This paper will test whether a Court would uphold Miller J’s assumption that “serious danger … to … mental health” must rest on a recognised diagnosis of mental illness. The main enquiry will be the meaning of “mental health”: Is “mental health” limited to the narrow definition of mental health, that is, “absence of mental illness”, as Miller J assumed? Or does it include the wide definition of mental health, that is, “mental wellbeing”, which might account for the consultants’ more liberal application? ...Item Restricted Issues Arising From the Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in M.S. v United Kingdom(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Tucker, Shelley; Geiringer, ClaudiaIt has been argued that the power of the State is at its greatest when the State detains people: detention, therefore, raises “fundamental issues of human rights”.1 In New Zealand, and elsewhere in the world, those detained by the State also seem to come disproportionately from parts of society that are already vulnerable, such as those with mental illness. This research paper considers implications and issues arising from a case involving a mentally unwell man who was detained by Police, and where there were delays in getting him appropriate psychiatric treatment. In M.S. v United Kingdom2 the European Court of Human Rights (the ECHR) found that these delays constituted a breach of his human rights; finding that the treatment he experienced amounted to degrading treatment in breach of art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the European Convention).Item Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2010) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2005) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2006) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2008) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2009) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2014) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2013) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS213: Law: Public Law(Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS331: Law: Bill of Rights(Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS331: Law: Bill of Rights(Victoria University of Wellington, 2005) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS331: Law: Bill of Rights(Victoria University of Wellington, 2008) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS331: Law: Bill of Rights(Victoria University of Wellington, 2007) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted LAWS331: Law: Bill of Rights(Victoria University of Wellington, 2006) Geiringer, ClaudiaItem Restricted "Nonsense on Stilts" or a Legitimate Human Rights Issue: Is the Saying of Council Prayers a Breach of Dissenters' Freedom of Religion?(Te Herenga Waka—Victoria University of Wellington, 2012) Courteney, Klaudia; Geiringer, ClaudiaThis paper discusses the implications council prayers have on a dissenter’s right to freedom of religion. The paper analyses the freedom of religion portion of the judgment of Ouseley J in Bideford Town Council to explore the issues council prayers raise with regard to the right of freedom of religion. The decision in the judgment is analysed in light of overseas jurisprudence from the United States and Canada after carefully exploring what the right of freedom of religion protects and which part of it is affected by the practice of council prayers. The discussion is drawn back to the implications it has for the practice of council prayers in New Zealand after the Wanganui District Council was influenced by the decision of Bideford Town Council to stop its prayer practice. The paper concludes that if the prayers are clearly voluntary, they should not breach the dissenter’s right to freedom of religion.