New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrospectivity

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2023

CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES (AUSTRALASIA LTD v ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO HISTORICAL ABUSE IN STATE CARE AND IN THE CARE OF FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS [2023] NZHC 3031

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3031
Court

High Court

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court held the Royal Commission's broad, purposive interpretation of "in the care of faith-based institutions" (including informal or pastoral care relationships) was open and lawful; Minutes 16 and 29 did not unlawfully expand the Terms of Reference; the Amendment Order was lawfully made by the Governor-General in Council under the prerogative and Inquiries Act and was not retrospective in effect; the NZBORA and discrimination challenges failed; and judicial restraint required non-interference with the Commission's ongoing inquiries abse…
14 Sept 2023

G (SC 50/2023) v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] NZSC 123

Citation

[2023] NZSC 123
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the ROMI Amendment Act and the expiry of the release conditions rendered the proposed appeal effectively moot, the appeal did not raise a matter of general or public importance in the circumstances, and no substantial miscarriage of justice would occur if leave were refused; the Court therefore declined to hear the substantive appeal or entertain fresh arguments not raised below.
4 Jul 2023

SEED HOUSING LTD v HARNESS RACING NEW ZEALAND INC [2023] NZHC 1705

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1705
Court

High Court

SEED held an equitable interest sufficient to support the caveat; Racing Industry Act 2020 s21 applies prospectively from its commencement and required Harness Racing consent for transfers after 1 July 2020 but refusal to consent did not render the agreement illegal or automatically cancelled; the Court refused to remove the caveat because SEED would be prejudiced and there was an arguable basis for further proceedings including judicial review of Harness Racing's decision.
26 Apr 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v G [2023] NZCA 93

Citation

[2023] NZCA 93
Court

Court of Appeal

The Commissioner must have his s 17 determination treated as a statutory factual determination; although the ROMI Act regime imposes restrictions in the nature of penalties, the Commissioner did not 'sentence' G and there was no relevant increase in penalty for s 6 Sentencing Act or s 25(g) BORA; having considered text, purpose and urgent parliamentary context the Court concluded Parliament intended the ROMI Act to apply from commencement (including to persons convicted and sentenced overseas prior to enactment), so application of s 17 to G was lawful; there was no breach of s 27(1) BORA beca…
6 Apr 2022

MORGAN v R [2022] NZCA 112

Citation

[2022] NZCA 112
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed more tolerant regime was not enacted or in force and courts must not adjourn sentencing solely to await possible legislative repeal; the sentencing judge acted within discretion under s167 and no appellate error was shown.
10 Sept 2021

HALLMOND v R [2021] NZHC 2369

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2369
Court

High Court

On a plain reading s52A(5) applies only to convictions for a third or subsequent offence "against subsection (1)" of s52A; convictions under predecessor provisions entered before s52A was enacted do not qualify absent an express deeming or carry-over provision; therefore the mandatory two-year disqualification under s52A(5) did not apply to the appellant and the two-year disqualification was quashed and substituted with a cumulative six-month disqualification under s52A(3).
9 Jun 2021

MARTIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 1356

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1356
Court

High Court

Section 52A(5) must be read according to its plain words and requires prior convictions under s 52A(1); s 22 of the Interpretation Act does not apply because s 52A does not apply or refer to a repealed enactment or replaced provision that would trigger deeming; in absence of express carry‑over Parliament's omission must be respected; therefore the appellant's conviction was unsustainable and the appeal is allowed.
1 Mar 2021

SINGSON v R [2021] NZHC 313

Citation

[2021] NZHC 313
Court

High Court

The Supreme Court in D v Police held the 2016 Act is not retrospective; therefore there was no jurisdiction to register persons for offences committed before the Act came into force and the appellant's registration must be quashed.
9 Feb 2021

D (SC 31/2019) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZSC 2

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 213
Court

Supreme Court

By majority the Supreme Court held s 9(1) of the Registration Act did not lawfully apply to offenders who committed qualifying offences before the Act came into force but were convicted and sentenced after that date because the statute was not sufficiently clear to displace the presumption against retrospective penalties under s 6 of the Sentencing Act and s 25(g) of the Bill of Rights; applying that conclusion the registration order was quashed (the Court also set out the proper two‑stage approach to s 9 assessments).
11 Aug 2020

PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY AS TRUSTEE OF THE DOUG VESEY TRUST v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2020] NZSC 81

Citation

[2020] NZSC 81
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is refused because the Court of Appeal correctly held that s 89AC applies, is procedural, and that time for the Commissioner to issue a NOR runs from the date the NOPA is treated as in time (so the NOR was in time); no error of law or sufficient public importance was shown to justify leave, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the TRA.