New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Officially induced error

Legal area

Court

28 Jun 2019

LONGHURST v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 1496

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1496
Court

High Court

Convictions quashed because the prosecution failed to fairly and adequately test the crucial mens rea issue (whether defendants knew they were obliged to disclose gross receipts) in cross-examination in circumstances where a broad statutory definition of income and inconsistent MSD operational practices made the obligation and dishonesty element genuinely contentious; the District Court judge's adverse credibility findings relied on reasons and propositions that were not put to witnesses and therefore the assessment of evidence was in error leading to a miscarriage of justice.
21 Jun 2018

GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE v R [2018] NZSC 55

Citation

[2018] 1 NZLR 875
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction because the photographs and the manner in which they were taken were not indecent in their nature and the surrounding circumstances relied upon (motive, surreptitiousness, zoom lens, prior incidents, organisation of other images) could not, by themselves, convert otherwise non-indecent photographic acts into an indecent act under s126; consequently the Crown had insufficient evidence on the actus reus (indecent act) and it was inappropriate to order a retrial.
25 Jul 2017

ROWE v R [2017] NZCA 316

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1211
Court

Court of Appeal

The camera seizure was lawful under s123 SSA given reasonable grounds to believe a warrant could have been obtained and the need to prevent deletion; taking photographs can constitute an indecent act depending on circumstances; the evidence (covert use of a zoom lens, sustained focus on teenage girls, numerous images, prior ban) sufficed for a properly directed jury to find both an indecent act and intent to insult beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.
23 Oct 2007

WILSON V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA277/07

Citation

openlaw-88a8fee5_c80f_4298_8ef6_eebfbb3c1963.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Special leave to appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish any arguable error of law or a question of sufficient merit: the factual and evidential basis for his claims (including officially induced error, delegation defects, bias and BORA breaches) was absent or immaterial, and the High Court had not erred in its analysis.

New Zealand Case Law

LONGHURST v MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2019] NZHC 1496

GRAHAM THOMAS ROWE v R [2018] NZSC 55

ROWE v R [2017] NZCA 316

WILSON V AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL CA CA277/07