MOVEMENT
  • Home
  • JR Speed Rule
  • Contact
  • FAQs
  • Home
  • JR Speed Rule
  • Contact
  • FAQs
Search by typing & pressing enter

YOUR CART

On 16 January, 2025 we lodged an application for judicial review of the Minister of Transport’s decision on the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2024.

On 9 April, the Wellington High Court will hear our interim order request to freeze the Government’s reversal of safer speed limits.  We're excited by the prospect of getting a decision before the Government's deadline of 1 July to reverse safer speed limits.  If you'd able to make a donation (tax deductible) to support our work, please go to our Givealittle page. Thank you!

​In summary, the 8 grounds for our judicial review are:
  1. Improper purpose (Para 42-43): The decision to adopt the 2024 Rule was inconsistent with the Minister's objectives under s 169 of the Act and his functions under s 169A of the Act.
  2. Failure to take into account a relevant consideration / error of law (Para 45-48):  The final Regulatory Impact Statement states that the respondent agreed to a change to the draft Rule to: Include an additional exception to the speed limits classification table to allow for interregional connectors with a history of serious road crashes to have speed limits reduced to between 70km/h and 90 km/h. The 2024 Rule does not include such an exception.
  3. Failure to take into account a relevant consideration / error of law (Para 50-53): The respondent failed to take into account “the level of risk existing to land transport safety” arising from the specific changes required by the 2024 Rule.
  4. Mistake of fact (Para 55-57). The Minister relied on incorrect information that “fatalities on local roads with speed limits up to 50km/h have remained relatively unchanged since these reduced speed limits were introduced from 2020.”
  5. Failure to take into account a relevant consideration (Para 59-62): The Minister erred in law in his consideration of New Zealand’s international obligations concerning land transport safety.
  6. Mistake of fact / irrelevant consideration (Para 64-66): The 2024 Rule does not allow permanent speed limits of 30 km/h or less on urban roads (other than civic spaces), which is not the same approach as is taken in Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Japan.
  7. Unreasonable decision (Para 68-70): It was unreasonable and perverse for the Minister to require permanent speed limit reductions to be reversed  if its purpose or one of its purposes was to protect school children.
  8. Predetermination / failure to consult and consider submissions (Para 71-73): The Minister failed to consult and consider submissions as required by s 161, by not bringing an open mind to consideration of submissions seeking the ability for RCAs to retain speed limits reduced since 1 January 2020.


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.