New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Publication/suppression order

Legal area

Court

10 Nov 2020

DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTEN v R [2020] NZSC 121

Citation

[2020] NZSC 121
Court

Supreme Court

The Court dismissed the leave application because the Court of Appeal correctly found the issuing officer had reasonable grounds to suspect offending and that evidence would be at the applicant's address based on the disclosed material (and more in the unredacted application), and because the application did not meet the statutory interest-of-justice threshold for a pre-trial appeal under s 74(4) of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
14 Jun 2017

JOINT ACTION FUNDING LIMITED v EICHELBAUM [2017] NZCA 249

Citation

(2017) 23 PRNZ 551
Court

Court of Appeal

The lawyer-litigant (Chorley) exception no longer applies in New Zealand under the current High Court Rules because r14.2(f) caps awards to the costs actually incurred by the party and 'costs actually incurred' are confined to billed legal fees; a self-represented lawyer who has no separate billed legal fees therefore cannot recover costs under the rules.
8 Aug 2016

POWLE v R [2016] NZCA 410

Citation

[2016] NZCA 410
Court

Court of Appeal

The prior joint convictions were sufficiently similar in nature, indicia of dealing and proximity in time to the charged conduct to make them probative of knowledge and control; that probative value was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice given the other Crown evidence and the availability of jury directions; accordingly the applications for leave to appeal against the pre-trial admission ruling were declined.
27 Jul 2016

R v DONALDSON [2016] NZHC 1718

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1718
Court

High Court

Given the offending's gravity a starting point of three years' imprisonment was appropriate; after quantified reductions for good character and remorse (5 months), cooperation (5 months) and a full 25% guilty plea discount, the effective sentence reduced to approximately 20 months, and on consideration of the defendant's circumstances and the pre-sentence report the appropriate and least restrictive outcome was 10 months' home detention with rehabilitative and non-association conditions.
7 Apr 2016

KAY v R [2016] NZCA 98

Citation

[2016] NZCA 98
Court

Court of Appeal

Viewed in context the abbreviated perseverance (Papadopoulos) direction was not inadequate or coercive; the jury's subsequent conduct showed no undue pressure; the s127 and s122 directions were adequate for the issues of delay and reliability; the pattern of convictions and acquittals was coherent with the evidence and ages of the complainant; no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal is dismissed (extension of time granted).
24 Mar 2016

J (CA256/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 87

Citation

[2016] NZCA 87
Court

Court of Appeal

The court preferred counsel's contemporaneous and consistent evidence over the appellant's conflicting account, found the judge did not act improperly and counsel's strong advice was appropriate given the strength of the Crown case; the plea was informed and voluntary so no miscarriage of justice occurred, therefore the extension of time was granted but the appeal dismissed.
10 Sept 2015

R v ROIGARD [2015] NZCA 430

Citation

[2015] NZCA 430
Court

Court of Appeal

Statements alleging willingness to kill other family members were excluded as marginally relevant, vague and unfairly prejudicial and did not align with the Crown's pleaded motive; statements by Hopkinson and Patu about the defendant's ability to hide bodies were admissible because they were relevant and corroborative of the Crown case that the body was concealed; Bell's evidence was too general and inadmissible; the High Court did not misapply s9A—the risk to witness safety justified refusal of bail.

New Zealand Case Law

DANIEL PAUL VAN HOUTEN v R [2020] NZSC 121

JOINT ACTION FUNDING LIMITED v EICHELBAUM [2017] NZCA 249

POWLE v R [2016] NZCA 410

R v DONALDSON [2016] NZHC 1718

KAY v R [2016] NZCA 98

J (CA256/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 87

R v ROIGARD [2015] NZCA 430