22 Nov 2023
The appeal is dismissed because the High Court found no error amounting to a miscarriage of justice: the trial judge applied the correct legal standards, reasonably preferred the firsthand MPI veterinary evidence over the defence expert on the facts, and was entitled to conclude beyond reasonable doubt the rams were unfit for transport at loading.
22 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the appeal was filed 762 working days late, no application or explanation for extension of time was provided despite court directions, no substantive grounds or usable detail of proposed fresh evidence were filed, the original evidence of the attack was strong and the proposed unspecified eyewitness evidence was unlikely to undermine the conviction or establish exceptional circumstances to avoid destruction, so the interests of justice did not justify granting leave.
27 Jan 2022
Even assuming the proposed affidavits and expert evidence were credible and could be treated as fresh, the facts and expert opinion would not demonstrate 'exceptional' circumstances under s 57(3) – the factors relied on were common in off‑leash parks and did not render the risk of repetition remote; admission of the evidence would not have affected the outcome, so fresh evidence was refused and the appeal dismissed, upholding the destruction order.
2 Mar 2021
Issuing a PS4 producer statement that certifies or records inspection or compliance does not, of itself, constitute 'carrying out building work' for the purposes of s40 of the Building Act 2004 where no building consent is required for that act; therefore convictions under s40 for issuing the PS4 were unsustainable and were quashed.
19 Oct 2020
Appeal dismissed: appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving 'exceptional' circumstances under s57(3) Dog Control Act 1996; immediate circumstances showed an unprovoked bite with the dog off lead and muzzle not properly deployed and contemporaneous medical records and photographs supported the complainant's account; appellant's chronic non-appearance and lack of credible fresh evidence justified refusal to adjourn and upholding the destruction order.
18 Dec 2019
The High Court allowed the appeals because the Authority failed to analyse the contemporaneous CCTV footage and did not determine whether two or more statutory signs of intoxication were observable at a time when the seller could reasonably have observed them; the police failed to prove on the required standard that the purchaser met the statutory definition of intoxication at the time of the sale given the CCTV and unchallenged testimony of the manager.
11 Mar 2019
Leave to appeal and stay were dismissed because the applicant did not challenge the settled principles governing security for costs, did not raise any question of general or public importance, and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice; accordingly there was no basis to grant leave or stay and the applicant was ordered to pay costs to the second respondent.