New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Doctrine of necessity

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2021

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2676

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2676
Court

High Court

Court admitted the 111 call and Brown's related documents as relevant to what information was available to attending officers; held Sergeant Novata's statements met s 18 threshold reliability and were admissible despite unavailability and lack of signature/date, and s 8 did not require exclusion because probative value and corroboration outweighed risk of unfair prejudice; police jobsheets and Detective Williams' jobsheet were admissible (jobsheets not hearsay where authors are witnesses and Williams' jobsheet qualified as business record under s 19 because it did not fall within the police-r…
12 Mar 2020

MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2020] NZSC 18

Citation

[2020]1 NZLR 38
Court

Supreme Court

Apply the Saxmere apparent bias test to any challenge; membership of a Royal Commission or government inquiry is not an automatic disqualification; the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to decide panel composition sitting as a three-judge bench; on the facts there was no reasonable apprehension of bias and no impediment to Arnold J sitting on the panel.
13 Jun 2019

WEBSTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1335

Citation

[2019] NZAR 911
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed: trial convictions quashed because the Police did not prove that Constable Park was lawfully on Webster's property and therefore was not acting in the execution of his duty when pushed, and the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the metal pole was an 'offensive weapon' (intended for causing bodily injury and without reasonable excuse); further, the trial judgment failed to engage with the legal issues required by Sena, producing a miscarriage of justice.
23 Jun 2017

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZSC 96

Citation

[2017] NZSC 96
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is dismissed because leave applications must be determined by permanent judges and, given that most permanent judges were respondents, the doctrine of necessity justified their participation; the leave decision's reliance on the Court of Appeal judge's decision was determinative and the omission regarding the costs order did not warrant recall.
16 Sept 2011

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v LEIGH SC 11/2011

Citation

SC 11/2011
Court

Supreme Court

The correct test for extending absolute parliamentary privilege to communications outside the House is necessity for the proper and efficient functioning of Parliament; communications of the type in issue (a public servant briefing a Minister to answer a parliamentary question) are not necessarily absolutely privileged and, on the facts, necessity was not shown so only qualified privilege applies; appeal dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

WRIGHT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL as representative of the NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 2676

MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2020] NZSC 18

WEBSTER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 1335

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2017] NZSC 96

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v LEIGH SC 11/2011