2 Nov 2023
The Court exercised its discretion and granted the extension of time because the respondents consented (without prejudice) and it was appropriate to allow the applicants time to seek leave to challenge the dismissal of the application to adduce further evidence after the Court of Appeal delivers its substantive judgment.
25 Aug 2023
The psychological report was excluded because it was not fresh (it could have been obtained for sentencing with reasonable diligence) and added no material information to affect the end sentence; the 10% discount for s27 factors was within the Judge's discretion given the appellant's continued denial undermining any clear causal contribution of mental health/addiction to the offending; therefore no error requiring intervention and the nine year imprisonment sentence is affirmed.
21 Jul 2023
There was a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would lead to termination of the appellant's role as co‑CEO and to significant collateral harm to the company's pre‑IPO and international business prospects; those consequences would be out of all proportion to the moderate gravity of the offending; fresh affidavit evidence was admissible; therefore discharge without conviction was warranted and the conviction and fine were quashed while the driving disqualification remained.
19 Apr 2023
Leave to adduce further evidence was declined because the affidavit was not fresh or cogent; the High Court's finding that 135 Kairua Road was purchased with proceeds of methamphetamine dealing is upheld and forfeiture stands; the CPRA can operate to permit assets forfeiture orders in respect of Māori freehold land subject to the protective alienation regime in Te Ture Whenua Māori Act when the Official Assignee disposes of vested land; however an assets forfeiture order cannot be made in respect of a fixture (a house affixed to land) as such improvements are not severable recognised estates…
22 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the appeal was filed 762 working days late, no application or explanation for extension of time was provided despite court directions, no substantive grounds or usable detail of proposed fresh evidence were filed, the original evidence of the attack was strong and the proposed unspecified eyewitness evidence was unlikely to undermine the conviction or establish exceptional circumstances to avoid destruction, so the interests of justice did not justify granting leave.
5 Dec 2022
Fresh evidence (affidavits) was admitted as cogent and credible, but the appellant failed to show he could not comply with a flexible community work requirement; the District Court made no sentencing error and community work combined with supervision and reparation remained an appropriate sentence; substitution with a fine would be inadequate given seriousness of offending.
1 Nov 2022
The High Court held there was no error in the trial Judge's assessment of evidence: the Judge permissibly accepted the complainant's credible, consistent and detailed account and rejected the appellant's narrative as implausible; the undisputed fact that the complainant could have left the room did not support an inference of consent once the Judge accepted her evidence of protest and physical constraint; proposed further evidence (MM affidavit, statement and EVI) was not sufficiently fresh, credible or cogent to undermine the verdict, and only the objective text messages were admitted but di…
19 Oct 2022
The High Court held the District Court's starting point of four years for the sexual violation was within range given victim vulnerability and breach of trust; the 18 month uplift for related indecency offences and global starting point of five and a half years was appropriate; the five percent cooperation credit (plus other unchallenged discounts) produced an end sentence of two years nine months which was not manifestly excessive and therefore the sentence appeal is dismissed; home detention is inappropriate given the nature of the offending; the statutory threshold for permanent name suppr…
19 Sept 2022
Application dismissed because the proposed evidence failed the required thresholds: it was not fresh or sufficiently central to the Tribunal's findings, could have been obtained or dealt with at the Tribunal with reasonable diligence, and admitting it would risk substantial re-litigation and require extensive further evidential procedures on appeal.
6 May 2022
The Supreme Court dismissed the application to adduce the email chain as fresh evidence because the criteria for admission were not met, allowed the appeal, set aside the Court of Appeal and High Court decisions refusing to sustain the caveat, and ordered that the caveat not lapse.