New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Defence of property

Legal area

Court

12 Sept 2022

GRIFFIN v R [2022] NZHC 2325

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2325
Court

High Court

Conviction for strangulation quashed because the Judge's reasons were insufficient on mens rea: the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the hoodie pull was brief and possibly accidental and the Judge had not established the appellant actually appreciated the real risk of impeding breathing (required for recklessness). The assault conviction was upheld because s53 did not apply: the victim's possession of the key had effectively become the relevant possession immediately prior to the use of force and the choking was part of an assault beyond the limited scope of a possessory reclaim…
20 Dec 2018

JACOB MITCHELL CUMMINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 622

Citation

[2018] NZCA 622
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the defendant elected to rely on his police statement and was on notice of the complainant's account, the prosecutor was not obliged to cross-examine him; the trial judge's finding that the complainant's account of the first part of the incident was more coherent and detailed was open on the evidence and excluded self-defence and defence of property, so no real risk of miscarriage arose and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Aug 2018

CUMMINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 340

Citation

[2018] NZCA 340
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal (and extension of time) was granted because, although the issues were case-specific and not of general public importance, there was a real risk of miscarriage of justice arising from the absence of cross-examination of the appellant which undermined the fairness of comparing the parties' accounts and meant the conviction may not safely stand without a hearing of the appeal.
15 Aug 2017

STANTON (AKA HONE MA HEKE) v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1939

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1939
Court

High Court

On the evidence the appellant believed only that his property was threatened, not his personal safety; the punch was retaliatory rather than defensive and therefore self-defence failed; given the appellant's history and lifestyle community sentences were impracticable and a three month term of imprisonment was within the available range, so the appeals were dismissed.
18 Nov 2013

GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125

Citation

[2013] NZSC 125
Court

Supreme Court

The application for recall is dismissed because the issues relied on by the applicant were already before and addressed by this Court in its earlier refusal of leave to appeal, and no new or exceptional grounds exist to justify recalling the final judgment.
11 Jun 2013

GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56

Citation

[2013] NZSC 56
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal correctly upheld the trial Judge's factual findings that the applicant used unreasonable force inconsistent with a legitimate defence of property, and the procedural and evidential complaints did not demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice or raise issues of general or public importance.

New Zealand Case Law

GRIFFIN v R [2022] NZHC 2325

JACOB MITCHELL CUMMINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 622

CUMMINGS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2018] NZCA 340

STANTON (AKA HONE MA HEKE) v POLICE [2017] NZHC 1939

GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 125

GOLLAN v R [2013] NZSC 56