Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that this case is not a state-law appeal under RSA 354-A:22, I. Defendant relies upon Dow v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 143 N.H. 166 (1998), in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that "because RSA 354-A:22 limits review to `orders' of the commission . . . RSA chapter 354-A does not allow for judicial review of a commissioner's probable cause determinations," id. at 168 (citation omitted). Dow precludes judicial review of HRC probable cause determinations in state court appeals, but plaintiff is not appealing either the HRC's probable cause determinations or its ultimate decision.
This petition for certiorari followed. Because there is no statutory provision for appellate review of the commissioner's dismissal of the discrimination charge, see Dow v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 143 N.H. 166, 168 (1998), a petition for writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for obtaining review, see In re Doe, 126 N.H. 719, 722-23 (1985). Our review of an administrative agency's decision on a petition for certiorari is limited to determining whether the agency has acted illegally with respect to jurisdiction, authority or observance of the law or has abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or capriciously. Petition of Walker, 138 N.H. 471, 473 (1994).
RSA 354-A:22, I, governs judicial review of decisions by the commission. See Dow v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 143 N.H. 166, 167 (1998). RSA 354-A:22, I, provides in part:
[1, 2] "In matters of statutory interpretation, this court is the final arbiter of the intent of the legislature as expressed in the words of a statute considered as a whole." Dow v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 143 N.H. 166, 167, 720 A.2d 598, 598 (1998) (quotation omitted). We construe provisions of the Criminal Code "according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice."