13 Dec 2023
Because the defendant had already served seven months of a two-year sentence, had complied with prior EM bail, had engaged in and completed rehabilitative programmes, and both probation and assessments found the address and offender suitable under s 80A, the balance of the sentence should be converted to five months' home detention with specified conditions; nothing post-sentencing warranted refusal.
25 Aug 2023
Leave to bring the pretrial appeal was declined because the proposed appeal raised no novel or widely significant legal issue, its merits were weak given the probative and distinctive nature of the propensity evidence, the matter could be assessed more appropriately at trial or on conviction appeal, and overall interests of justice and system efficiency did not justify interlocutory appellate intervention.
18 Aug 2023
The Judge refused the broad non-publication orders because they were unnecessary to protect commercial confidentiality and would unduly impede open justice, but accepted that some filed material is confidential and therefore ordered that no non-party may access the court file without an order of a High Court Judge and that Synlait and a2MC must be notified and heard on any access application; interim non-publication orders were withdrawn and a reporter's access application was referred to a High Court Judge.
24 Apr 2023
Starting point for the representative assault was set at 2.5 months' imprisonment, uplifted by two weeks for similar prior offending, resulting in a total sentence of three months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively on the existing sentence because of the victim's vulnerability and abuse of trust and absence of mitigating factors.
28 Apr 2022
Extension of time to seek leave to appeal is granted, but leave to appeal is declined because a direction to mediation under s 159 is procedural for the purposes of s 179(5), so the Employment Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the de novo challenge and the proposed questions of law are not seriously arguable.
17 Dec 2021
The Court concluded preventive detention was necessary because the offending fell within R v AM band four (adopting an 18-year starting point for totality), the defendant posed a high and persistent risk of reoffending based on expert reports and historical pattern of intrafamilial, long‑running sexual abuse, and protection of the community therefore required an indeterminate sentence; the Court fixed a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years for the preventive detention order and imposed concurrent determinate terms on remaining charges.
15 Jun 2020
The proceeding was struck out because it constituted a collateral attack on prior final determinations that the settlement agreement was valid and binding (including this Court's refusal of leave), and because the Court of Appeal's review jurisdiction under s213 ERA is narrowly confined (per Moodie) and the applicant disclosed no reasonably arguable ground within that jurisdiction; the debaring application was declined and costs awarded to the third respondent.
24 Oct 2018
Although published material on the laudafinem websites breached the non-publication orders and the material suggested awareness of the orders, the court could not find contempt beyond reasonable doubt against an unidentified defendant; procedural fairness requires the alleged contemnor be identified, joined and given notice and opportunity to respond before a contempt finding and penalty; therefore the application for contempt is declined in the absence of an identified defendant.
1 Feb 2018
The High Court suppression order made by Woolford J remains binding and prevents publication of the witness's real name; the Tribunal was correct to recognise and record that order and to take steps to prevent publication because naming the witness in the Tribunal or to the Privacy Commissioner would constitute publication and risk contempt, so the interim non-publication order is justified in substance even if ss95 and 107 HRA are not strictly dispositive.
3 Jul 2017
Leave to appeal was refused because the issue did not raise a matter of general or public importance and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice; the Court relied on recent precedent (Erceg v Erceg) and saw no need to revisit the law on suppression in family civil disputes.