7 Jul 2023
Section 16(2)(a) is a definitional provision for s16: a registrable offender 'generally resides' at premises for reporting purposes if he or she resides there for at least two days (whether consecutive or not) in any period of 12 months; Judge Savage's pre-trial ruling adopting that test was correct and contains no error of law.
23 Aug 2021
The Amendment Act expressly and validly retrospectively validated the appellant's registration and made him subject from that time to all provisions of the Act (including the offence provisions); clause 12 evidences Parliament's intention to override inconsistent law including s 26(1) NZBORA and the Supreme Court decision, and clause 10 excludes liability only for the period between the Supreme Court judgment and commencement of the Amendment Act, therefore the appellant's convictions stand.
15 Jun 2021
Applying the Supreme Court two-stage test the Court found the appellant posed a real but low risk of sexual offending; that risk was not of sufficient gravity to justify the significant and intrusive registration and reporting obligations given their limited relevance to internet-only offending; consequently the original registration order was in error and was quashed.
31 Oct 2018
Clause 1(4)(c) of schedule 1 makes retrospectively registrable persons subject to "all other provisions" of the Act; therefore s 36, including s 36(5), applies retrospectively and the Commissioner correctly excluded the applicant's custody period from the calculation of his reporting period; the District Court did not err.
20 Mar 2018
The plea of previous conviction was unavailable because the central punishable acts differed: the Parole Act charges punished commencing employment or staying away without prior written approval under an extended supervision order, whereas the Child Protection Act punished failing to report changes to Police within specified timeframes; the offences therefore did not arise from the same facts and refusal to allow the special plea was correct.
4 Apr 2017
The application for extension of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify an arguable question of law with sufficient prospect of success and did not adequately explain the significant delay; the Authority's factual findings were open on the evidence and the minor incorrect assumption about ongoing benefit receipt was immaterial to the outcome on recovery under s86(1).
2 Apr 2014
The applicant's challenge failed because the OIO's receipt and consideration of BayWa's annual report was an administrative act within a statutory scheme that provides no measurable criteria for the report and grants the regulator broad ongoing monitoring powers; absent evidence of narrow reviewable wrongdoing (eg bad faith) or that the report obligation clearly required inclusion of the applicant's grievance, the Court will not substitute its view for the regulator and the claim is dismissed.
18 Mar 2013
The manager's projections were qualified forecasts and not guarantees; the defendant complied with contractual standards and reporting obligations, plaintiff was not reasonably induced by any misrepresentation, plaintiff's cancellation was unjustified, and defendant succeeded on its counterclaim for losses caused by unlawful termination.
6 Apr 2006
The Court held that catches lawfully taken and lawfully reported (including reports made outside CELRs) fall within the definition of 'eligible catch' in s34(2) and that the Catch History Review Committee has jurisdiction under the Act to recognise such lawfully reported catches and amend returns or otherwise include them in provisional catch history; therefore the Committee's decision to include the 1994 reported catches (resulting in 22,120 kg) was lawful and the Chief Executive's review application failed.