New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-party disclosure

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2021

KL (CA753/2020) v R [2021] NZCA 375

Citation

[2021] NZCA 375
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the jury could reasonably accept the child's core allegation giving rise to the representative Charge 1 while acquitting on other counts because inconsistencies and matters favourable to the defence (including potential coaching, timing, frequency and context discrepancies) were matters the jury could permissibly resolve against the defence; the ROC was ambiguous and insufficiently cogent to be admitted as fresh evidence or to establish a real risk of miscarriage of justice; accordingly fresh evidence application was declined and the appeal dismissed.
20 May 2021

GRAY v R [2021] NZCA 202

Citation

[2021] NZCA 202
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the s24 application and ordered a non-party disclosure hearing because the slides appeared relevant to the appeal and the statutory criteria in s25 were met; directions were issued to allocate a fixture and to serve specified documents on Forensic Pathology South Island.
11 Mar 2021

R v HARRIS & MULHOLLAND [2021] NZHC 468

Citation

[2021] NZHC 468
Court

High Court

The Court held the RBNZ was not a co-prosecutor or the SFO's agent for disclosure purposes; the MOU and conduct did not convert RBNZ-generated material (largely produced in exercise of RBNZ's IPS Act functions before SFO involvement) into material held on behalf of the SFO; the SFO led the criminal investigation and retained custody of investigative documents; therefore the defendants' application under s30(1)(a)(i) for RBNZ disclosure was dismissed and there was insufficient evidential basis to order a non-party disclosure hearing under s24.
11 Nov 2020

TAMIHERE v R [2020] NZCA 554

Citation

[2020] NZCA 554
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for a non-party disclosure hearing was granted because the footage is likely held by TVNZ, it is at least broadly relevant to a ground of the Governor-General's reference concerning the location inconsistency, and the appellant has laid a realistic evidentiary foundation under s335(2)(e) such that the request is not a general fishing expedition; accordingly the matter should proceed to a s27 hearing and the Registrar ordered to take steps under s26 to enable it.
30 Oct 2020

MARR v COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 413 [2020] NZHC 2859

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2859
Court

High Court

Scale costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $14,868 were awarded to the respondent following discontinuance; increased costs were refused because, on balance, the appellant's conduct (including disputing the central forgery finding, pursuing non-party disclosure and some non-compliance) was not so unreasonable or prejudicial as to warrant an uplift beyond scale costs given her self-representation, contested central issue, and that additional attendances were adequately compensated by scale costs.
6 Aug 2020

REID v R [2020] NZCA 331

Citation

[2020] NZCA 331
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted the s24 application and ordered a non-party disclosure hearing because the Department of Corrections confirmed it held the recording of the telephone call alleged to contain a recantation and the recording appeared relevant to the appellant's appeal; the Registry was directed to fix a hearing date, effect specified service, and a s160 summons requiring attendance and production of the digital recording and transcript was ordered.
17 Dec 2019

BUNNINGS LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2019] NZHC 3340

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3340
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld Judge Cunningham's rulings: the amended s159 CPA summons was lawful and not an abuse of process because the price-comparison data had been voluntarily supplied to the Commerce Commission and disclosed to Bunnings; use of s159 to secure production and ensure witness attendance was proper; Whitford survey rules do not govern objective automated price-comparison data and Snowden's evidence is admissible provided the underlying electronic comparison datasets are produced as exhibits and disclosed in accordance with CDA obligations.
2 Sept 2019

CE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI — MIN FOR CHILDREN v P (CA565/2018) [2019] NZCA 403

Citation

[2019] NZCA 403
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed as moot and inappropriate for adjudication because the complainants had agreed to disclosure and the documents had proved relevant at trial; the Court declined to make a categorical rule on "family dynamics" as a basis for disclosure and instead provided procedural guidance to Oranga Tamariki on pursuing targeted appeals in representative cases and appointed counsel to assist in future consolidated appeals; suppression of the respondent's identifying particulars was ordered under s200 Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
5 Aug 2019

R v BRENTON HARRISON TARRANT [2019] NZHC 1886

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1886
Court

High Court

Court is satisfied ACC holds the requested material and that it appears relevant to the defendant's change of venue application; accordingly the Court made mandatory directions under s26 requiring ACC to provide the material to the Court for a s24 hearing.
29 May 2019

TRANTER v R [2019] NZCA 190

Citation

[2019] NZCA 190
Court

Court of Appeal

The Criminal Disclosure Act only applies to an existing criminal proceeding, including an appeal; there was no live appeal or criminal proceeding before the Court to which the Act could be applied and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to order non-party disclosure to facilitate a potential Smith application; the application for disclosure is declined.