New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fair trial rights

Legal area

Court

26 Oct 2023

ASTON EDWARD WILLIAM ERNEST WEDGWOOD v R [2023] NZSC 139

Citation

[2023] NZSC 139
Court

Supreme Court

The Court granted an extension of time but dismissed leave to appeal because the applicant's submissions raised no question of general or public importance and the factual and evidential material lacked sufficient prospects of success to meet the statutory test for name suppression or to show a miscarriage of justice; the Court of Appeal's assessment that the statutory thresholds were not met was sound.
19 Jun 2023

R v BENBOW [2023] NZHC 1521

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1521
Court

High Court

The published episodes, assessed on content and character, did not meet the statutory threshold in s199C(1) CPA of creating a real and appreciable risk of prejudice to a fair retrial; the podcast was generally neutral, accurate and educational, and although accessible, its existence alone did not justify a takedown; accordingly the takedown application was refused.
1 May 2023

PARORE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2023] NZHC 1010

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1010
Court

High Court

Court found Commissioner breached s25(d) Bill of Rights by compelling the plaintiff to participate in the TAA civil disputes process (NOPA and GST returns) while contemplating prosecution and then later filing charges, that the breach was highly reckless and causative of plaintiff's loss, the stay was an insufficient remedy, and damages (a declaration, reimbursement of legal costs and modest emotional harm award) were appropriate.
13 Sept 2022

R v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 2347

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2347
Court

High Court

Given the defendant's documented chronic and severe injuries, the demonstrated exacerbation of pain and disruption caused by travel, the absence of any impediment to effective participation or private consultation by AVL, the ability of the victim to present a victim impact statement remotely and the public availability of the defendant's identity reducing any unique adverse impression, the interests of justice favour permitting the defendant to attend sentencing by AVL from Whanganui Prison; accordingly the application is granted.
1 Sept 2022

S v R [2022] NZHC 2203

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2203
Court

High Court

Uncontradicted evidence established an appreciable risk that publication would cause extreme hardship to the defendant's parents in Samoa, satisfying s200(2)(a); there was no countervailing public interest in publishing the name at this stage, so the discretion was exercised to grant name suppression until final determination of the charge.
17 Jun 2022

R v BENBOW [2022] NZHC 1355

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1355
Court

High Court

The adjournment was granted because the medical incapacity of two key defence counsel created an unavoidable risk that the defendant could not receive a fair trial if the matter proceeded on the scheduled date; that preservation of fair trial rights outweighed the Crown's prejudice concerns, and suppression of the adjournment decision and limited medical details was justified to protect privacy and allow notification of affected parties.
11 Mar 2022

R v DAWSON [2022] NZHC 433

Citation

[2022] NZHC 433
Court

High Court

Because the suppression orders were made solely to protect the co-accused's fair trial rights and the co-accused has since been tried, convicted and sentenced, the suppression orders are no longer necessary and are formally ended.
9 Mar 2022

WEDGEWOOD v R [2022] NZCA 42

Citation

[2022] NZCA 42
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal because the applicant failed to meet the high statutory threshold for suppression: expert reports and affidavits did not establish 'extreme hardship' or a sufficient causal link between publication and assaults or suicide risk, and the public interest in open justice outweighed the applicant's interests; the High Court decision was a first-instance determination under its inherent jurisdiction and no guardian ad litem was available in criminal proceedings.
3 Mar 2022

R v MOANANUI [2022] NZHC 357

Citation

[2022] NZHC 357
Court

High Court

The application was refused because it was overly broad and failed to comply with rule 11(2)(b) by not sufficiently particularising the documents sought, imposing an unreasonable burden on the registry and raising confidentiality and relevance concerns; material specific to co-defendant Mr Jennings was also excluded as irrelevant to the applicant's appeal.
13 Dec 2021

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT v PARORE [2021] NZHC 3405

Citation

(2021) 30 NZTC 25
Court

High Court

The High Court held the District Court did not err: issuing default assessments and proceeding with the TAA disputes process while contemplating prosecution compelled the defendant to disclose material that prejudiced his fair trial rights and acknowledged elements of offences; the prejudice had a causal link to the Commissioner's conduct and no adequate lesser remedy existed, therefore a stay of the criminal proceedings is warranted to preserve trial fairness and the integrity of the justice system.