New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Publication suppression order

Legal area

Court

3 May 2022

R v LAMBERT [2022] NZHC 924

Citation

[2022] NZHC 924
Court

High Court

Court fixed a global starting point of 20 years' imprisonment reflecting placement in Taueki band three and multiple severe aggravating features; applied a 10% reduction for mental impairment (insufficiently causative to warrant larger discount) and full 25% guilty plea discount, yielding a total 35% reduction and an end sentence of 13 years' imprisonment; imposed sentences for four attempted murder charges to be served concurrently; imposed a minimum period of imprisonment of 50% (6.5 years); imposed publication prohibition relating to victims' mental health material and CCTV footage.
17 Feb 2022

CHRISTIAN DESMOND MILLAR v R [2022] NZSC 6

Citation

[2022] NZSC 6
Court

Supreme Court

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal for want of jurisdiction and dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal direct to the Supreme Court because the delay was inadequately explained, no exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a leapfrog appeal, and the identified counsel errors did not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice given corroborative evidence and the applicant's dishonest denials at interview.
14 Feb 2022

A, B and C v D and E LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE Z TRUST [2022] NZHC 173

Citation

[2022] NZHC 173
Court

High Court

Defendants must pay plaintiffs' costs on a Category 2 basis with specific adjustments: commencement (Step 1) assessed at Band C but reduced by one day to nine days due to overlap with an unsuccessful claim; Steps 33 and 33B to be assessed as if the trial had taken three days; second counsel not certified; allowance for only one CMC memorandum; disallowance of claimed costs for the 12 February and 28 February 2021 memoranda; allowance for plaintiffs' memoranda responding to the defendants' Beddoe application.
18 Dec 2020

DENNIS HAUNUI v R [2020] NZSC 153

Citation

[2020] NZSC 153
Court

Supreme Court

Supreme Court allowed the appeal because Ms X was not 'unavailable' merely by announcing through counsel an intention to claim privilege; compellability and privilege are distinct and privilege must be assessed in response to specific questions; exclusion of admissible text messages (other than the 8:57am message) deprived the defendant of a fair trial under s 232(4)(b) Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and therefore caused a miscarriage of justice; convictions quashed and retrial ordered; publication of this judgment and proceedings suppressed until final disposition of retrial (publication in law…
6 Mar 2020

BENJAMIN MORLAND EASTON v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZSC 17

Citation

[2020] NZSC 17
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's statutory interpretation arguments lacked sufficient prospects of success and there was no risk of a miscarriage of justice; the Commissioner's reassessment of care arrangements under the Child Support Act was lawful in the circumstances, extinguishing the father's liability for the period in question.
14 Dec 2018

R v PATANGATA [2018] NZHC 3298

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3298
Court

High Court

The Court found the two prior convictions were sufficiently specific and unusual to demonstrate a tendency to use a knife when drunk and angry; the similarities and frequency over four years gave moderate probative value on identity and intent which did not amount to unfair prejudice that would outweigh probative value, and therefore the propensity evidence was admissible.
19 Sept 2018

HEWITT v R [2018] NZCA 374

Citation

[2018] NZCA 374
Court

Court of Appeal

The prosecutor's challenge to the appellant's alibi crossed the protection in s32 of the Evidence Act 2006 and the judge was obliged to give the statutory s32 direction but failed to do so; despite that breach, on the facts and strength of the Crown case the omission did not cause a miscarriage of justice and convictions stand; however the original sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced to reflect totality, treatment and rehabilitation needs, and inappropriate uplift for historical convictions was not sustained; permanent suppression ordered for specified paragraphs of judgment.
19 Jul 2018

R v TAITAPANUI [2018] NZHC 1853

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1853
Court

High Court

Judge accepted the detectives' evidence and rejected the defendant's and his partner's accounts, found no breach of s23 NZBORA, no unfair inducements, and no causal link between police conduct and the defendant's decision to be interviewed, and therefore ruled the videotaped interview admissible for trial.
25 May 2018

94778c85-b0b6-4a9a-8816-901cc387bbe1.pdf

Citation

openlaw-226fe67e_543b_463d_8418_c2416ed406b9.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and held the proposed propensity evidence was inadmissible because its prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value under the applicable evidence principles, and accordingly excluded the evidence; leave to appeal was granted to address that issue.
3 May 2018

A (CA41/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 136

Citation

[2018] NZCA 136
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time granted; jury verdict on representative charge was not unreasonable because complainant gave sufficient specific evidence of repeated digital penetration and jury entitled to prefer her evidence despite inconsistencies; acquittal on specific charge was not inconsistent with conviction on representative charge because jury could reject date-specific evidence yet accept evidence of other incidents; sentencing starting point of 7.5 years fell within band two and was not manifestly excessive; refusal to grant good character discount was not erroneous; suppression order under s20…