12 Jun 2023
Section 18 of the CCRC Act must be read as standing alone and referrals are to the High Court where the first right of appeal under the SPA or CPA would have been to the High Court; legislative history and the purpose of treating referrals as first appeals establish that s397 CPA does not alter the appeal court for CCRC referrals in this context, so the CCRC was correct to refer the matter to the High Court.
6 Jul 2022
The Court declined to recall its earlier decision because recall is an exceptional remedy inappropriate where effective alternative remedies remain (renewed application for Supreme Court leave or application to Te Kāhui Tātari Ture) and there is no basis shown to displace the earlier judgment on the material before the Court; accordingly the recall application was dismissed.
25 May 2022
A Governor-General reference under s 406(1)(a) authorises the Court to consider the conviction as an appeal of the whole case and does not confine the appellant to grounds specified in the reference; the Court retains power to exclude frivolous, vexatious or abusive grounds and recall remains an alternative exceptional remedy.
9 Jul 2020
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave: a direct appeal from the High Court was not available after appeals to the Court of Appeal and this Court; the Court of Appeal was correct to characterise the application as a recall; refusal to recall is not itself appealable to this Court; the proper recall test in criminal cases adopts the Saxmere/Horowhenua formulation (including a 'very special reason' ground) but on the facts the new evidence was unreliable and inadmissible, so no very special reason existed to recall and grant leave.
15 Jul 2019
The Court will decline to recall a final Court of Appeal judgment except in narrow circumstances: only where (1) there is a fundamental error in procedure (including nullity), (2) a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if uncorrected, and (3) no alternative effective remedy exists; second appeals to this Court are not permitted by statute and applicants must seek leave to the Supreme Court or the prerogative of mercy. The applications before the Court did not meet these preconditions and were declined.
28 Aug 2017
The High Court held the Cabinet Guidelines should be interpreted purposively to permit inflation adjustment of the non-pecuniary compensation benchmarks where the interests of justice require it; the Minister's advice and Cabinet's decision failed to consider whether consistency and inflation warranted adjustment, constituting an error of law; the issue was justiciable and a declaration was made that the Guidelines permit inflation adjustment and the Minister was invited to reconsider in light of that declaration.
20 Feb 2017
Because there was no live appeal or pending proceeding, the sub judice rule and contempt jurisdiction could not be engaged; the amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and alternative remedies (including recall or the Royal Prerogative of Mercy) remain available, therefore the proceeding had no prospect of success and was struck out.
2 Aug 2012
The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, did not raise a matter of general or public importance and would not prevent a substantial miscarriage of justice; accordingly it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear the appeal and costs were awarded to the respondent.
20 Feb 2012
The application was dismissed because it sought to challenge the validity of a conviction entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, which s14(2) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 precludes being re-litigated in habeas corpus proceedings.
7 May 2009
A petition to the Governor-General for the prerogative of mercy is not a right of appeal protected by s25(h) NZBORA or art14(5) ICCPR and does not prevent the Minister from lawfully deporting the applicant under the Immigration Act; no illegality or sufficient prejudice was established to justify declaratory or prohibitory relief, and finality of the immigration statutory scheme weighs against staying deportation.