New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Courts (remote participation) act 2010

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2022

R v GOEL [2022] NZHC 3575

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3575
Court

High Court

Applying s 8(2) of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 informed by ss 5 and 6, the Court found that given the serious public interest in in-person sentencing for convictions for bribery and corruption, absence of evidence that prison transfer would be refused, and no compelling interests of justice favoring AVL, the defendants must attend sentencing in person and their applications to appear by AVL were refused.
13 Sept 2022

R v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 2347

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2347
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's documented chronic and severe injuries, the demonstrated exacerbation of pain and disruption caused by travel, the absence of any impediment to effective participation or private consultation by AVL, the ability of the victim to present a victim impact statement remotely and the public availability of the defendant's identity reducing any unique adverse impression, the interests of justice favour permitting the defendant to attend sentencing by AVL from Whanganui Prison; accordingly the application is granted.
24 Jul 2017

ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LTD [2017] NZHC 1719

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1719
Court

High Court

AVL link from Madeira was permitted because, applying ss 5 and 7 of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010, the proceeding was predominantly legal in nature with limited credibility risk, suitable AVL technology could be provided by the Registry, and use of AVL would not unduly impair the defendant's rights; accordingly the plaintiff was not required to attend in person.
21 Jul 2011

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV 2009-404-7339

Citation

openlaw-a0bf656d_e6fa_4d55_bdca_9d5dbb3cd23f.pdf
Court

High Court

Given Mr Taylor's demonstrated history of obtaining contraband and escaping custody, combined with adequate AVL technology at the prison and potential cost and security benefits, the Court was satisfied the Department established grounds to require future civil appearances by AVL, subject to Mr Taylor's right to apply to appear in person where interests of justice or oral evidence require it.

New Zealand Case Law

R v GOEL [2022] NZHC 3575

R v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 2347

ADDLEMAN v LAMBIE TRUSTEE LTD [2017] NZHC 1719

ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV 2009-404-7339