Legal interventions The Commission has continued to be involved in a range of human-rightsrelated legal proceedings. Attorney General vs Taylor Late in 2017 the Commission was granted status to appear as intervenor by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Taylor, a major constitutional law case regarding whether the courts have jurisdiction to declare a statute inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA). The Commission appeared as in intervener in the Court of Appeal proceedings (reported in the New Zealand Law Reports), where it carried the burden of the argument in favour of the courts having the jurisdiction to do so. The case was heard in the Supreme Court in March 2018. The decision is pending. However, prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, Cabinet agreed in principle to allow the courts to make a declaration of inconsistency if they believe that legislation is inconsistent with the BORA and has indicated that the BORA will be amended to provide for this remedy. This outcome indicates the significant impact the Commission’s legal intervention function can have in implementing human rights principles in New Zealand law. Wall v Fairfax In November 2017, the Commission appeared as an intervener in the High Court in Wall v Fairfax, an appeal from a 2017 decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, which held that a pair of editorial cartoons published in regional newspapers in 2014 did not incite racial disharmony for the purposes of section 61 of the Human Rights Act. The case required the Court and the Tribunal to balance the rights of freedom of expression and protection from discrimination. In February, the High Court released its decision and dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier decision of the Tribunal that, while the cartoons were offensive, they did not meet the section 61 threshold and that the limitation of the right to freedom of expression was not justified in this case. In doing so, the Court largely adopted the submissions advanced by the Commission in its judgment. The judgment has subsequently been reported in the New Zealand Law Reports. Hines & Jacobs v Attorney-General This case regards an application under the Human Rights Act for a declaration that the provisions of the Education Act 1964 allowing state primary schools to hold religious instruction and observances are inconsistent with the right to freedom from discrimination. The Commission supported an application for the case to be removed to the High Court due to delays in the Tribunal. In its decision approving the grounds for removal to the High Court, the Tribunal drew extensively on the submissions of the Commission in support. The High Court has subsequently granted leave for the removal of the case, which will likely be heard in 2019. Annual Report 2018 33