New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Diversion

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2023

KULANTHAVELU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2374

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2374
Court

High Court

No miscarriage of justice was established: contemporaneous emails supported counsel's advice that a destruction order was likely, diversion was not available at the time of the plea and would have been unlikely given prior infringements and victim stance, exceptional circumstances were not proved, and the District Court correctly applied established authority; accordingly the guilty pleas and the destruction order stand.
5 Jun 2019

DAY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1256

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1256
Court

High Court

The appellant's unchallenged evidence was displaced by detailed contemporaneous account and a signed summary of facts from counsel; because counsel's affidavit and file notes established the plea was voluntary and counsel followed instructions, and because cross-examination was not pursued when it was necessary to resolve credibility, there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal must be dismissed.
22 Apr 2016

DOMB v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 767

Citation

[2016] NZHC 767
Court

High Court

The Registrar cannot require a broad, open-ended consent to police disclosure. The Registrar is entitled to request disclosure of (1) convictions and sentences including findings of liability for infringement offences with maximum penalty $10,000 or more; (2) information about pending charges only where the charges are for offences in respect of which the applicant may elect trial by jury or are infringement offences with maximum penalty $10,000 or more; and (3) records of discharges without conviction and diversions only in respect of charges for which the applicant may elect trial by jury o…
19 May 2009

KNIGHT V VETERINARY COUNCIL OF NZ AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-1300

Citation

openlaw-29a0b685_291d_4585_83a7_930f3990f4d2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Registrar lacked lawful authority to refer Dr Knight to the second Complaints Committee under s39 given the restriction in clause 17(2) Schedule 1; the Judicial Committee relied on the Code as amended after the events and failed to address whether the proven record-keeping breaches met the statutory test for professional misconduct, constituting errors of law that warrant quashing of the finding of professional misconduct and the consequential orders of 16 May 2007.

New Zealand Case Law

KULANTHAVELU v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2374

DAY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 1256

DOMB v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2016] NZHC 767

KNIGHT V VETERINARY COUNCIL OF NZ AND ORS HC WN CIV-2007-485-1300