New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Harassment

Legal area

Court

28 Oct 2020

GONZALEZ v POLICE [2020] NZHC 2810

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2810
Court

High Court

Appellate court found the evidence did not support conviction under s8(1)(a)(i) (intent to cause fear) and the offending was of low gravity; however, the real and appreciable risk of professional or employment consequences was not sufficient to render a conviction disproportionate to the offending, so the District Court's refusal of discharge is upheld; the suppression order was excessive and is replaced with a targeted Harassment Act s39 order protecting the victim's identity and details of communications while permitting publication of the appellant's name and general nature of the offendin…
13 Oct 2020

P (CA550/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 482

Citation

[2020] NZCA 482
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted but fresh evidence not admitted; the guilty plea and conviction stand because legal advice received was correct and the plea was voluntary relying on subsequent counsel, the police investigation did not demonstrate miscarriage, and the sentencing judge correctly applied the test for discharge without conviction; appeal dismissed.
21 Jul 2020

NEW ZEALAND POLICE v BURROWS [2020] NZHC 1755

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1755
Court

High Court

The High Court held that on the facts Judge Mill was correct: Mr Burrows was not "in custody" when the s 38 report was ordered on 27 July 2017 and the CPMIP Act process initiated without jurisdiction had caused unjustifiable delay; that delay was undue and a stay of the prosecution was the appropriate remedy; the appeal was dismissed.
10 Dec 2019

NOBLE v SIMONS [2019] NZHC 3242

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3242
Court

High Court

Both proposed questions fail the s 120(2) threshold: the first assumes factual findings inconsistent with prior findings that the original notice was defective and therefore is not a seriously arguable question of law; the second is resolved by s 109 which requires intentional commission of an unlawful act and does not add a separate legal requirement of 'flagrant' conduct, and the Tribunal made adequate factual findings supporting the exemplary damages award; therefore leave to appeal is declined.
7 Nov 2019

GEBBIE v R [2019] NZCA 540

Citation

[2019] NZCA 540
Court

Court of Appeal

No miscarriage of justice occurred from the late provision of the Family Court file because delays were attributable to the Family Court, no material was identified that ought to have been put to the complainant, and trial counsel could have sought an adjournment; additionally the sentencing Judge had statutory power under s 123B Sentencing Act 2002 to make a protection order in the circumstances, so the appeal against conviction and sentence fails.
26 Sept 2019

NOBLE v SIMONS [2019] NZHC 2438

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2438
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: the District Court validly upheld the Tribunal's factual findings of harassment and lawfully apportioned the excessive combined award to comply with statutory limits under s38 and s48 via s118; s51(7) did not apply to validate the second notice, but the Tribunal correctly resolved the termination-date dispute under s85 by treating the first notice as an obvious error and holding the second notice was valid and effective.
16 Sept 2019

PHILLIPS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZHC 2330

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2330
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal out of time was declined because the applicant offered no adequate explanation for the 19 year delay, produced no evidence supporting serious allegations about trial unfairness or judicial intimidation, Wild J had already comprehensively addressed the substantive grounds, and no question of law of sufficient general or public importance under s144(2) was discernible to justify departure from the principle of finality.
22 Mar 2019

BUTLER v R [2019] NZCA 65

Citation

[2019] NZCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal in part because some reduction for overlap in culpability was required (a seven month reduction to the cumulated starting point) and a discrete 10% discount was warranted for voluntary return to face charges; accordingly the 15 month sentence for charge one was quashed and replaced with four months, producing a final overall sentence of two years and seven months imprisonment.
7 Jul 2017

S v S [2017] NZHC 1574

Citation

[2017] NZFLR 519
Court

High Court

The Judge found the respondent's bulk emails and tweets amounted to psychological abuse but correctly exercised discretion in refusing to make a final protection order because the respondent gave undertakings, the risk of recurrence had materially diminished given situational triggers and resolved issues, and the broad standard conditions could produce unintended consequences for child-care; the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in that discretionary conclusion though finding some of the respondent's social media conduct did amount to abuse.
29 Aug 2016

WAXMAN v CROUCH [2016] NZHC 2004

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2004
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the District Court's refusal to grant a restraining order because the respondent's conduct, viewed in context, did not satisfy the statutory definition of harassment (no pattern of at least two specified acts causing a reasonable fear for safety) and would not cause a reasonable person in the applicant's circumstances sufficient distress to justify a restraining order; however, the finding that the applicant's proceedings were vexatious and the consequent award of indemnity costs was quashed because the applicant honestly believed she was being harassed and did not exhib…