New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Private prosecution

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2023

IRWIN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 3658

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3658
Court

High Court

For the purpose of s148 HSWA a private prosecution is 'brought' when the charging document is lodged/deposited with the District Court Registry; s26 CPA's requirement that a charging document may be accepted for filing or referred to a judge for direction is a separate screening step and does not alter the limitation start-date; therefore Ms Irwin's lodgment on 7 October 2022 was within the two year limitation and the private prosecution was reinstated.
20 Nov 2023

DUNSTAN v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT & ANOR [2023] NZHC 3280

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3280
Court

High Court

Leave to continue the judicial review is refused because the proposed private prosecution is an abuse of process and without merit; statements in a procedural judicial telephone conference do not fall within s111 Crimes Act conduct, the formal statement provided was insufficient to justify a trial, and the existing s166 restraint order binds the court absent a demonstrated meritorious basis for leave.
30 Oct 2023

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2023] NZCA 537

Citation

[2023] NZCA 537
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court costs order because the discretion to award costs for an unsuccessful application for leave to appeal under s 8 requires something significantly out of the ordinary; the leave application here was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, and the High Court erred by focusing on the merits of the underlying prosecution rather than the circumstances of the leave application; there was no basis to exceed the statutory scale.
11 Jul 2023

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2023] NZHC 1803

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1803
Court

High Court

The Judge correctly applied s26 Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and concluded the materials provided by the proposed private prosecutor did not establish insufficiency of public records or wilful/negligent disposal necessary to justify a trial under the Public Records Act; public records and documents supplied showed panel membership and allocation information; proposed prosecutions were unsupported and likely time barred; accordingly the charging documents were not accepted for filing and the application for judicial review was dismissed.
7 Jul 2023

D (SC 41/2023) v AUCKLAND DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZSC 83

Citation

[2023] NZSC 83
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds were confined to the particular circumstances of the applicant's case, raised no matter of general or public importance and did not suggest the Court of Appeal was wrong or that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, such that statutory leave thresholds were not met.
12 Jun 2023

DFT v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZCA 225

Citation

[2023] NZCA 225
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time refused because applicant delayed nearly two years with no explanation, the proposed appeal raised no public interest, mirrored meritless High Court arguments, and under Almond v Read the interests of justice did not require granting an extension.
6 Jun 2023

RAEWYN WALLACE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZSC 66

Citation

[2023] NZSC 66
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues of general importance identified (objective element of self-defence, reverse onus in s 8 claims, and whether a private prosecution can satisfy the State's investigation obligation) were either unlikely to change the outcome on the established facts or the case was an unsuitable vehicle for resolving them; therefore no leave was granted.
3 May 2023

ALKAZAZ v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND [2023] NZHC 1041

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1041
Court

High Court

The High Court found the District Court Judge committed a procedural error by not issuing a s 26(1)(b) direction, which infected the conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to justify a trial; however the Judge's independent conclusion that the proposed private prosecution was an abuse of process was legally sound and unaffected by that procedural error, so the judicial review is dismissed and the District Court's refusal to accept the charging documents for filing stands on the abuse of process ground.
6 Apr 2023

GREENDRAKE v McCONNOCHIE [2023] NZHC 778

Citation

[2023] NZHC 778
Court

High Court

The High Court exercised its discretion under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act and related authorities to award costs because the leave to appeal was meritless, reflecting a prosecution that lacked sufficient evidence from the outset; having regard to 2B benchmarks and the criminal context the court fixed a compensatory award of $4,500.00.
29 Mar 2023

DELIU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 658

Citation

[2023] NZHC 658
Court

High Court

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was struck out under r 15.1(1)(a). The District Court judge permissibly exercised the s 26 screening function by finding the proposed private prosecution was, on the objective facts, an abuse of process and lacked evidential basis to justify trial; there was no material error of fact or law, no breach of natural justice or legitimate expectation in declining an oral hearing, and allegations of judicial bad faith were unsupported. As the claim could not succeed on these grounds, strike-out was appropriate.