New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Right to legal advice

  • 8 Apr 2022

    HEDLEY & BULLEID v POLICE [2022] NZHC 714

    Citation
    [2022] NZHC 714
    Court
    High Court

    Block H warnings complied with s69(4A)(b) when read in context and conveyed that a positive blood test could lead to prosecution by infringement notice or charge depending on result; any omission of the specific phrase 'depending on the proportion of alcohol' did not mislead motorists, reasonable compliance applied, no unfairness or miscarriage of justice arose, and the appeals were dismissed.

    • Drink driving
    • Evidential breath and blood testing
    • Statutory warning compliance s69(4a)
    • Right to legal advice

  • 13 Feb 2020

    KISSLING v CROWN PROSECUTIONS PALMERSTON NORTH DISTRICT COURT REGISTRY [2020] NZHC 150

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 150
    Court
    High Court

    The application was dismissed because the applicant's detention flowed from a bail ruling of 23 December 2019 and s 14(2)(b) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 prevents habeas corpus review of bail rulings; challenges to bail must be pursued under the Bail Act 2000, and no adjournment was required to decide the threshold issue.

    • Habeas corpus
    • Bail
    • Judicial jurisdiction
    • Right to legal advice

  • 30 Mar 2016

    TAMIHERE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2016] NZHC 539

    Citation
    [2016] NZHC 539
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court found there was an adequate factual basis for the two contempts, that the minimum procedural safeguards were met (the nature of contempt was identified, appellant had opportunity to seek advice and to be heard and declined), and that the sentences of 14 and 10 days imprisonment were within range and not manifestly excessive; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

    • Contempt
    • Sentencing
    • Jurisdiction
    • Abuse of process
    • Right to legal advice

  • 17 Aug 2015

    YU v MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2015] NZHC 1953

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 1953
    Court
    High Court

    The Court continued the interim order because the plaintiff established a real contest on central issues — specifically whether she was denied the right to legal advice and whether the revocation/cancellation was irrational or made without taking relevant matters into account — warranting preservation of the status quo pending a substantive hearing.

    • Entry permission revocation
    • Visa cancellation
    • Right to legal advice
    • Interim injunction to prevent removal
    • Procedural fairness