New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege against self-incrimination

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2021

A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE v HEALTH PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHC 2249

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2249
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal erred in law by treating s76(7) as an absolute bar to using voluntary statements made at a PCC interview as evidence before the Tribunal and by concluding the practitioner retained a privilege against self-incrimination in the circumstances; the Tribunal also failed to apply the required proportionality assessment under the Evidence Act and sch 1 cl 6. The decision excluding the transcript was quashed and the Court affirmed the PCC has rights of appeal under s106(3).
19 Jul 2021

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MARSHALL [2021] NZHC 1819

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1819
Court

High Court

Lawful examinations under CPRA s107 produce evidence admissible in CPRA civil forfeiture proceedings because s165 limits use of compelled self-incriminating statements to specified criminal prosecutions only and does not bar their use in civil forfeiture proceedings; the respondents' admissions were not 'self-incriminatory' as they were not reasonably likely to lead to further prosecution given statutory limits on use; exclusion under s8(2) was not warranted as probative value was high and prejudice not unfair.
18 Dec 2020

DENNIS HAUNUI v R [2020] NZSC 153

Citation

[2020] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court allowed the appeal because Ms X was not 'unavailable' merely by announcing through counsel an intention to claim privilege; compellability and privilege are distinct and privilege must be assessed in response to specific questions; exclusion of admissible text messages (other than the 8:57am message) deprived the defendant of a fair trial under s 232(4)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice; convictions quashed and retrial ordered; publication of this judgment and proceedings suppressed until final disposition of retrial (publication in law…
6 Apr 2020

W (CA641/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 90

Citation

[2020] NZCA 90
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the Court was satisfied the statutory criteria were met: there was a real possibility of a miscarriage of justice arising from the admission of Family Court evidence without caution regarding self-incrimination and from the District Court Judge's refusal to recuse and to allow counsel to withdraw on the morning of trial.
12 Dec 2018

FUATI v PENG [2018] NZHC 3283

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3283
Court

High Court

Given HCR 32.3(1) and the lack of opposition, the court varied the ancillary disclosure orders to require the banks to file affidavits about transactions and interactions on 14 May 2018 and to provide contemporaneous account statements to enable policing of the freezing orders; the court declined to decide privilege waiver and accepted the first respondent's uncontested evidence as to monthly living expenses.
21 Dec 2017

YOUNG & ANOR v ZHANG [2017] NZCA 622

Citation

[2017] NZCA 622
Court

Court of Appeal

The consent order was valid and binding; appellants' claims of illness, misunderstanding and procedural defects were rejected as not credible or immaterial; although the contempt finding arose by reason of appellant Ying's actions resulting in breach of the consent order (criminal contempt), any procedural deficiency in warning about self-incrimination did not produce a miscarriage of justice because contempt would have been established without her testimony; the fine imposed was excessive and reduced from NZD 10,000 to NZD 7,500.
17 Feb 2016

Hong v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 184

Citation

[2016] NZHC 184
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal correctly found the appellant's prior statements were not privileged, were made in connection with the provision of regulated services, and cumulatively amounted to misconduct (disgraceful or dishonourable). The liability appeal was dismissed. The two month suspension was quashed because the appellant had already served an unnecessary four month suspension in related proceedings which the Court considered in the interests of justice. The remaining penalty orders, including costs awards, were confirmed and the respondent was awarded High Court costs on appeal.
30 Mar 2015

WENDY MAREE WHITEHEAD v R [2015] NZSC 29

Citation

[2015] NZSC 29
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal did not err in concluding the jury directions adequately addressed financial interdependence and s 29A, and because proceeding with the criminal trial first did not constitute an abuse of process given privilege against self-incrimination, evidential and practical difficulties; the issues were fact-specific and not of public importance.
12 Aug 2011

BULL V UTUMAPU HC PMN CIV-2011-454-260

Citation

openlaw-9af17951_69c4_4704_b464_3330f93751d7.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 31(1)(f) can be used to require statements but when invoked in the course of investigating possible offences it must be read and exercised consistently with the right to silence; 'conditions' in s 31(1)(f) is confined to the narrower meaning relating to physical conditions, materials and equipment that affect safety, the inspector must give adequate specific notice of the matters, purpose and allegations to enable informed legal advice and exercise of privilege, and the power does not permit compelling a non-employer director (Mr Bull) to attend as the company's representative.
17 Dec 2010

SINGH v R SC 42/2010

Citation

SC 42/2010
Court

Supreme Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant lacked standing to complain about the denial of the complainant's privilege; the trial judge correctly concluded that any risk of prosecution to the complainant was not sufficiently real and appreciable to engage s60; the defence documents were properly excluded under s35 as not necessary to meet the veracity challenge and their late admission would unfairly prejudice the Crown, and no unfairness vitiated the trial outcome.