New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Necessity for protection order

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2021

OGLE v NZ POLICE [2021] NZHC 1646

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1646
Court

High Court

The protection order issued under s 123B was quashed because, although the conviction qualified as a family violence offence, the sentencing record did not establish or record the forward-looking necessity for the order (family circumstances, risk to children, protective effect of rehabilitative measures, or victim's non-objection). Proper application of s 123B requires evidence of necessity; absent that record the order cannot stand. The Family Court can review or discharge orders made under s 123B.
15 Oct 2019

KFW v KBW [2019] NZHC 2621

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2621
Court

High Court

Appellate court found the Family Court erred in concluding a final protection order was unnecessary; having found past physical and psychological abuse and that the applicant reasonably feared future violence, the evidential burden shifted to the respondent but the countervailing factors he relied on (new relationship, cooperative proximity, compliance with temporary order) were insufficient to displace the need for protection. The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and made the final protection order for the applicant and the children.
5 Apr 2016

SN v MN [2016] NZHC 566

Citation

[2016] NZFLR 447
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Family Court did not err: one incident of psychological abuse was proven but other allegations and physical assault claims were not established; the Judge reasonably exercised discretion under s14(1)(b) and correctly concluded a final protection order was not necessary given countervailing factors, so the appeal was dismissed.
14 Apr 2010

T V K HC DUN CIV-2009-412-001023

Citation

openlaw-7349bc63_2f07_45b6_bdb6_27a7d7d49794.pdf
Court

High Court

Given established past serious violence (2005 assault), the trial judge's accepted factual finding of a threatened punch on 2 October 2009, the applicant's alcoholism with risk of relapse, and the applicant's documented vulnerability (illiteracy, cognitive/socioeconomic disadvantage), it was open to the judge under s14 to find a real risk of future harm and to conclude a final protection order was necessary; the appellate court could not say the judge was plainly wrong and dismissed the appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

OGLE v NZ POLICE [2021] NZHC 1646

KFW v KBW [2019] NZHC 2621

SN v MN [2016] NZHC 566

T V K HC DUN CIV-2009-412-001023