New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Legal aid funding

  • 17 Jun 2021

    FAWCETT v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2021] NZHC 1436

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 1436
    Court
    High Court

    Leave to intervene was granted to the ADLS, NZBA and DLANZ because the Court concluded their participation would materially assist determination of issues about the scope of legal aid entitlements and access to justice and that any risk of repetition or prejudice could be managed by case management directions and the Rules.

    • Legal aid funding
    • Intervention by non‑parties
    • Access to justice
    • Case management

  • 13 Jun 2017

    CHISNALL v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2017] NZCA 248

    Citation
    [2017] NZCA 248
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court held that s 10 distinguishes between a court 'direction' (s 10(1)) and a respondent 'request' (s 10(2)); s 10(6) applies only where the court directs an assessor and not where a respondent requests one; therefore where a respondent requests an assessor and has not been granted legal aid the costs are not payable from public funds, and legal aid is Parliament's chosen route to fund such reports; however the Court may in an appropriate case exercise s 10(1) and direct an assessor and thereby trigger s 10(6).

    • Public protection orders
    • Legal aid funding
    • Expert assessment reports
    • Statutory interpretation
    • Equality of arms

  • 29 Apr 2013

    KING V PFL FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-1734

    Citation
    openlaw-16632ac1_1dda_40dd_83cf_e6632b50eb05.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The application to adjourn was refused because, on balance, the interests of justice required maintaining the allocated fixture: the defendants would suffer unfair prejudice from further delay, the plaintiffs could achieve readiness if LSA made a prompt decision on funding, and LSA processes do not justify vacating the trial date.

    • Adjournment of trial
    • Legal aid funding
    • Trial fixture allocation
    • Costs
    • Receivership and liquidation
    • Delay and prejudice

  • 28 Feb 2012

    REID v R SC 16/2011

    Citation
    SC 16/2011
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to present any non-speculative basis to conclude the DNA or mobile phone tracking evidence was unreliable or that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred, and no prospect of resolving funding-related inability to review the evidence was shown.

    • Rape
    • Murder
    • Dna evidence
    • Mobile phone tracking
    • Leave to appeal
    • Miscarriage of justice

  • 23 Jul 2009

    WIKIO AND ANOR V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 59/2009

    Citation
    SC 59/2009
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Because applicants' counsel advised that legal aid had been refused and he would not proceed pro bono, there was no realistic prospect the appeal would be pursued, so the Court of Appeal properly exercised its discretion under r 43(2) to refuse an extension of time; the Supreme Court will not disturb that discretionary decision.

    • Extension of time
    • Leave to appeal
    • Legal aid funding
    • Court discretion

  • 29 Aug 2005

    BROWN V ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 17/05

    Citation
    SC 17/05
    Court
    Supreme Court

    Leave was declined because no issue of general or public importance was shown and there was no basis to conclude a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred; concurrent factual findings in the lower courts established the denied testing would not have produced the DNA evidence relied on and the denial was not shown to be causative of unfairness.

    • Dna evidence
    • Fair trial (nzbora ss 25 and 27)
    • Legal aid funding
    • Compensation for wrongful conviction
    • S 347 crimes act discharge
    • Leave to appeal