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:
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
