29 May 2023
The High Court found the threshold in s 200(2) was met because publication was likely to cause extreme hardship to Ms S given her serious mental health risks and significant employment consequences; balancing that hardship and the presumption of innocence against open justice warranted continuation of interim name and profession suppression; appeal dismissed.
21 Dec 2022
The Court declined to award costs because the successful appeal, even with a Crown concession of miscarriage of justice based on judicial misdirection, did not constitute the type of 'out of the ordinary' circumstances required to exercise the s 8 discretion in favour of the appellant; the retrial was aborted due to the complainant's unavailability for personal reasons unrelated to prosecutorial fault, and ordinary criminal appeals are most unlikely to attract costs orders.
28 Nov 2022
The adjournment was lawful: consideration of totality was relevant because the alleged Whanganui offending occurred while on bail for the Levin charges and assessing overall culpability together was within the interests of justice; any reference to pre-sentence detention was irrelevant but immaterial to the decision; there was no breach of NZBORA rights; judicial review relief was declined.
29 Aug 2022
The High Court held the trial judge's credibility findings and fact findings were rational and supported by the evidence, the judge's interventions and provision of routine information to a self-represented defendant were proper and did not produce a miscarriage of justice, exclusion of non‑witness statements as hearsay was correct, and therefore there was no ground under s232 to overturn the conviction.
8 Jun 2022
The defendant failed to establish the statutory threshold under s200(2) because the online abuse, while deplorable and harmful, was not shown to be of the exceptional comparative magnitude required for 'extreme' or 'undue' hardship attributable to publication of accounts relating to this proceeding; nor was there sufficient evidence of real risk to a fair trial or danger to safety, so renewed interim name suppression was not justified (suppression only to continue pending expiry of appeal period or determination of any appeal).
6 May 2022
The application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the Court was not satisfied that this appellant's case provided an appropriate context to determine the jurisdictional question whether declarations of inconsistency can be granted in criminal appellate proceedings; given the Attorney-General's prior s 7 report and the Crown's acceptance of inconsistency, and the absence of a live contest on inconsistency, the discretionary grounds for leave were not met.
13 Apr 2022
Evidence did not establish the high 'extreme hardship' threshold in s 200(2)(a) and the discretionary balancing did not clearly favour suppression; the District Court's refusal to continue name suppression was correct and was accordingly upheld on appeal.
9 Feb 2022
The judge did not err: he explicitly recorded the prosecution burden and presumption, placed the appellant's evidence in context, considered the defence contention and the post-incident texts and calls, and relied on independent corroboration from the complainant's brother and Constable Paki which was materially consistent with the complainant and inconsistent with the appellant. Those findings provided an adequate evidential and reasoning basis to reject the appellant's account and uphold the convictions, so no miscarriage of justice occurred.
10 Sept 2021
The Court held there was no material error in sentencing: a 10% youth discount and 15% guilty plea credit were appropriate given the offending and benefits of the plea arrangement; the sentencing Judge's limited reliance on undetermined charges was an error of approach but not materially affecting the sentence; no deduction for electronically monitored bail was warranted because of breach and attendant circumstances; leave to apply for home detention was properly refused given seriousness and impact on the victim; appeal dismissed.
11 Jun 2021
The Court assumed inconsistency between s 77 LTA and s 25(c) NZBORA (the Crown did not advance a s 5 justification) but concluded it was bound by prevailing appellate authority that formal declarations of inconsistency are not made in criminal proceedings and must be sought in a civil High Court proceeding; even if jurisdiction existed the Court would decline to grant a declaration on these facts because Parliament was already aware (Attorney‑General s7 report), the inconsistency was recorded in the reasons, no s5 evidence was advanced and a declaration would provide no practical utility to t…