23 Jun 2023
High Court allowed appeal, finding the District Court erred in its oppressiveness analysis by underweighting the nexus between lengthy prosecutorial delay and the applicant's markedly changed circumstances (birth of a child, financial dependence and family ties); those combined, delay-linked factors met the high threshold of oppression under s 8(1)(c), so the surrender order was quashed.
20 Oct 2022
The appeal was dismissed because s 8(1)(b) was not engaged: the accusations and the authorities' conduct in bringing charges were not shown to be other than in good faith; and s 8(1)(c) was not established because the appellant failed to demonstrate a sufficient link between the 14 years since the alleged offences and present unjust or oppressive consequences of surrender, with the evidence about South African prison conditions being inadequate; matters about likely remand and conditions are properly considered by the Minister under s 30.
28 Mar 2018
Where defendants pleaded guilty on the basis of recklessness to dealing large quantities of a class C controlled drug analogue, starting points are reduced from those applied where knowledge is established; undue prosecutorial delay warrants a substantial baseline reduction (assessed here as c.12 months and then adjusted for individual circumstances), guilty pleas attract a 25% discount, and totality/personal rehabilitation justified non‑custodial sentences for Cho (10 months home detention), Singh (6 months home detention) and Nguyen (6 months community detention) while Khan received impriso…
23 Nov 2017
The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the threshold for intervention was not met: the District Court applied the correct legal principles, the delay did not make a fair trial impossible given the Crown's documentary evidence and statutory safeguards (including admissible business records and hearsay protections), and statutory appeal and pre-trial remedies render judicial review inappropriate except in truly exceptional cases.
29 Feb 2016
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the District Court was not in error of law: the judge lawfully found that the 30-year delay, combined with the police investigatory history, prior similar prosecutions and deportation to New Zealand, the limited number of complainants and the respondent's settled residence in New Zealand had a sufficient nexus to the delay to render surrender unjust or oppressive under s 8(1)(c).
30 Jul 2007
The trial judge was entitled to find that Watt, acting in his capacity as trustee when authorising payment from the trust account, acted dishonestly and converted estate funds so as to fall within s 230; the conviction was not unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence; pre‑charge delay did not constitute abuse of process; the judge was not bound by cost revisors' findings.