New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of admissions

Legal area

Court

5 Apr 2023

YOUNG v ROSS (NO. 4) [2023] NZHC 750

Citation

[2023] NZHC 750
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds raised a question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the contractual right was properly characterised as a chose in action vested in the Official Assignee on bankruptcy, the agreement could not preclude reference to matters of public record nor be given the expansive prospective meaning alleged, and the second applicant was not designated as a beneficiary under s 12 CCLA so had no enforceable contractual right.
2 Sept 2021

GRANT v POLICE [2021] NZHC 2297

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2297
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed. The High Court accepted the constable's oral evidence that the appellant volunteered he was the driver before any caution and that the officer therefore did not have to caution under the Practice Note because he lacked sufficient evidence to charge prior to that admission. Although the entry amounted to a search and the officers failed to comply with SSA ss 92-93 (making the search unlawful and the evidence improperly obtained), the Evidence Act s 30 balancing test favoured admission: the intrusion was at the lower end of seriousness, there was no bad faith, the evide…
26 Sept 2019

ARMISHAW v R [2019] NZCA 456

Citation

[2019] NZCA 456
Court

Court of Appeal

The conviction was upheld because the appellant's admission was properly characterised as propensity evidence with probative value and the jury were given clear directions to consider each charge separately; adding a new charge during that trial was not practicable; the sentencing judge's factual findings about the frequency of offending were open on the evidence and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
8 Dec 2017

R v MARKS [2017] NZHC 3048

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3048
Court

High Court

Judge found on the balance of probabilities that Marks committed the act constituting the indecent assault; medical reports established intellectual disability causing serious cognitive and adaptive deficits; because he could not adequately understand the nature and likely severe sentencing consequences of a guilty plea in the third strike context nor communicate adequately with counsel, he is unfit to stand trial; accordingly he must be remanded under s 23 for inquiries and assessment under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.
21 Mar 2014

NEW ZEALAND BLOOM LIMITED v CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL S.A. [2014] NZHC 536

Citation

[2014] NZHC 536
Court

High Court

The court ordered a separate determinative question on whether s82 can support recovery from Cargolux for surcharges levied by other cartel members and held that the plaintiff must file a further amended statement of claim providing clearer particulars of the alleged breaches (including whether s30 deeming is relied on) and of causation (clarifying primary or secondary liability) to define the scope of discovery and issues for trial.
18 Feb 2014

SHIVNEEL SHAHIL KUMAR v R [2014] NZSC 3

Citation

[2014] NZSC 3
Court

Supreme Court

No exceptional circumstances under s14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 justified a direct appeal; leave to appeal directly was dismissed. A pre-trial publication prohibition was necessary to protect the fairness of the impending trial; publication in law reports or digests was permitted.
1 Aug 2008

CAMERON V R SC 30/2008

Citation

SC 30/2008
Court

Supreme Court

Dismissal of the application for leave was required because permitting a direct leapfrog appeal would force the Supreme Court to decide additional issues not previously considered by the Court of Appeal; the Court of Appeal must first have the opportunity to address those issues and reconsider its earlier ruling in light of the full trial record.

New Zealand Case Law

YOUNG v ROSS (NO. 4) [2023] NZHC 750

GRANT v POLICE [2021] NZHC 2297

ARMISHAW v R [2019] NZCA 456

R v MARKS [2017] NZHC 3048

NEW ZEALAND BLOOM LIMITED v CARGOLUX AIRLINES INTERNATIONAL S.A. [2014] NZHC 536

SHIVNEEL SHAHIL KUMAR v R [2014] NZSC 3

CAMERON V R SC 30/2008