New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Royal prerogative of mercy

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2023

WATSON v R [2023] NZCA 552

Citation

[2023] NZCA 552
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined to exclude the expert reports because, at this interlocutory stage, they are potentially relevant and may be substantially helpful under s25 and s7 in assessing contamination risk; issues of freshness and cogency are matters for the substantive appeal panel, but the appellant must file an affidavit complying with r12B by 1 December 2023 and the Crown may renew its exclusion application at the appeal.
21 Feb 2023

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 251

Citation

[2023] NZHC 251
Court

High Court

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was an abuse of process; the District Court correctly applied s26(3)(a) and reasonably concluded there was insufficient evidence, on a prima facie basis, that the proposed defendant had the required intent to pervert the course of justice, so the charging document was correctly rejected and the judicial review proceeding is struck out and dismissed.
26 Jun 2019

MILNER v R [2019] NZHC 1471 .

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1471
Court

High Court

Bodily samples used as the basis for expert evidence constitute 'other things connected with the trial' under s 324 Criminal Procedure Act 2011; custody passed to the appeal court on appeal and, in the absence of any action transferring custody away, the Court of Appeal retains custody. Therefore the High Court will not make the order and the matter must be determined by the Court of Appeal.
1 Feb 2018

NUKU v THE POLICE COMMISSIONER [2018] NZHC 36

Citation

[2018] NZHC 36
Court

High Court

The High Court suppression order made by Woolford J remains binding and prevents publication of the witness's real name; the Tribunal was correct to recognise and record that order and to take steps to prevent publication because naming the witness in the Tribunal or to the Privacy Commissioner would constitute publication and risk contempt, so the interim non-publication order is justified in substance even if ss95 and 107 HRA are not strictly dispositive.
20 Feb 2012

EASTON V GOVERNOR-GENERAL HC WN CIV 2011-485-1753

Citation

openlaw-7fc4b70c_e0f2_4266_8821_d90dd144abf8.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's claim against the Governor‑General disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action: a one‑day delay in tabling a s7 report (if established) did not deprive Parliament of opportunity to consider the issue and did not warrant relief; the royal prerogative of mercy was processed by ministerial advice in accordance with convention and the Letters Patent; therefore the claim against the Governor‑General must be struck out. Separately, security for costs of NZD 5,000 against the impecunious plaintiff in respect of the Wellington City Council claim was just and proportionate, and th…
3 Nov 2011

JOHN FREDERICK ERICSON V THE SUPERINTENDANT OF RIMUTAKA PRISON HC WN CIV-2011-485-1607

Citation

openlaw-6cb72cc3_db9c_4270_93f0_4fe74326fe98.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because habeas corpus cannot be used to attack the merits of a conviction under s 14(2) Habeas Corpus Act 2001 and the applicant produced no new, compelling evidence about medication or automatism sufficient to disturb prior findings made by tribunals and the Court of Appeal.

New Zealand Case Law

WATSON v R [2023] NZCA 552

SLAVICH v WELLINGTON DISTRICT COURT [2023] NZHC 251

MILNER v R [2019] NZHC 1471 .

NUKU v THE POLICE COMMISSIONER [2018] NZHC 36

EASTON V GOVERNOR-GENERAL HC WN CIV 2011-485-1753

JOHN FREDERICK ERICSON V THE SUPERINTENDANT OF RIMUTAKA PRISON HC WN CIV-2011-485-1607