[ad_1]
iStock
A woman’s New Zealand passport was cancelled by order of the Minister of Internal Affairs. (File photo)
The Supreme Court is sitting in a rare closed session for the second part of the appeal of a woman stripped of her New Zealand passport over concerns she was a threat to the security of another country.
The woman’s lawyer was able to speak for her at public sessions of the case this week but rules about classified security information meant her job ended when the five judges sat in a secure room at the nearby High Court building in Wellington.
At the secret sitting a “special advocate” with security clearance looked after the woman’s interests.
Even the woman herself, whose name was suppressed, does not know what was discussed.
It was one of her enduring concerns that she knows only an unclassified summary of the information that went to the Minister of Internal Affairs in May 2016 and led to her New Zealand passport being cancelled.
She has not applied for another New Zealand passport even though she was able to after a year. She says the cancellation decision was unlawful.
She is a citizen of Australia and New Zealand, has an Australian passport, and now lives in Australia. She previously lived in New Zealand and apparently last left in April 2016.
Defending the cancellation decision, Crown lawyer Aaron Martin told the Supreme Court it was believed she intended to facilitate a terrorist act.
The Security Intelligence Service prepared a report for the minister, which was summarised as saying it was believed she would contribute technical knowledge and capability to assist the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and share it online, and travel to Syria to join ISIL.
Martin said the minister’s decision needed to be based on information that was credible having regard to the source or sources. It should be a fair and accurate report that disclosed if a material line of inquiry was not followed.
BROOK SABIN/STUFF
Getting novelty stamps in your passport is a mistake, with an official warning airlines or some countries might not accept your passport if it has them.
The special advocate, Ben Keith, had told the court the SIS had a “duty of candour”, but Martin said the report for the minister should contain information that was material and in context.
Keith told the court that the minister should also have been given information the SIS had that was in the woman’s favour.
After the closed court hearing due to end on Wednesday, the Supreme Court was expected to reserve its decision.
[ad_2]