New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appeal standard

Legal area

Court

16 Nov 2022

MORGAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2999

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2999
Court

High Court

The High Court found the offending to be of low gravity but accepted there was a real and appreciable risk that a conviction would materially and disproportionately harm the appellant's current and future employment prospects (supported by the employer's statement and the appellant's role handling client information); accordingly the s107 threshold was met and the conviction should be discharged without conviction.
31 May 2022

CROSS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1243

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1243
Court

High Court

Applying the Hill two‑stage test, the Court held the circumstances of the attacks were not exceptional because the owner failed to keep the dogs under control, the risk of repeat attacks on future escape was neither remote nor immaterial, and therefore destruction under s57(3) was justified; the destruction order was not manifestly excessive and the appeal failed.
30 Sept 2021

FISHER v R [2021] NZHC 2602

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2602
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no error in the District Court Judge's exercise of discretion: the offender reoffended within weeks of finishing electronic monitoring despite prior final warnings, demonstrating lack of deterrence and non-compliance, which justified imposing imprisonment rather than home detention; absence of comparable cases and family hardship did not mandate substitution of sentence.
10 Sept 2021

SANGSTER v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2021] NZHC 2371

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2371
Court

High Court

The appeal is allowed because the trial Judge decided the case on the reasonableness of the appellant's communications rather than on the objective reasonableness of his excuse for failing to report, and the Judge's apparent acceptance of the appellant's testimony made the conviction unsafe; the conviction is therefore quashed.
25 Jun 2021

HAENGA v PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1549

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1549
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Dog Control Act offences are strict liability subject to a total absence of fault defence and the Fairweather 'control' test is not a statutory element; on the facts the appellant summoned his dog to attack while he was the aggressor so there were no exceptional circumstances and both conviction and destruction order were upheld.
27 Apr 2021

CHAUDHARY v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 898

Citation

[2021] NZHC 898
Court

High Court

After reassessing the offending and mitigation the Court found the gravity of offending to be between low and moderate and the consequences of conviction between low and moderate; those consequences were not out of all proportion to the gravity, therefore a discharge without conviction was not available and the District Court's refusal was upheld.
10 Feb 2021

RANFORD v POLICE [2021] NZHC 132

Citation

[2021] NZHC 132
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal, holding the District Court erred by imposing imprisonment when a less restrictive sentence was available and appropriate; intensive supervision for 18 months with specified standard and special conditions (including no alcohol, assessment and treatment, residence requirement and testing) plus 100 hours community work better met the statutory sentencing purposes, prioritising rehabilitation while providing deterrence and denunciation, and electronic monitoring was not necessary in the circumstances.
3 Dec 2020

SAMATUA (aka SOLOMONA) v POLICE [2020] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Judge was entitled to accept the police evidence and infer conscious, deliberate conduct from the appellant's words and movements; those findings were open on the evidence and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice, so the conviction for assault stands.
8 Sept 2020

LOCHHEAD v R [2020] NZHC 2334

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2334
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court sentence was within the available range and not manifestly excessive: a 20% guilty plea discount and a 15% mental health discount were appropriate; no credit was given for time on restrictive curfew because the appellant reoffended and breached bail; fresh medical records of the victim were not admitted as cogent evidence; appeal dismissed and sentence of 27 months upheld.
7 May 2020

YUAN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 933

Citation

[2020] NZHC 933
Court

High Court

The High Court found no error in the District Court's assessment: the offending was of moderate to high seriousness given the very high blood alcohol concentration and presence of passengers; mitigating factors did not outweigh seriousness; immigration consequences identified did not establish a real and appreciable risk of consequences out of all proportion to that gravity, and therefore discharge without conviction was not justified, so the appeal was dismissed.