New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reasons for judgment

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2022

BENTSON v POLICE [2022] NZHC 125

Citation

[2022] NZHC 125
Court

High Court

The judge did not err: he explicitly recorded the prosecution burden and presumption, placed the appellant's evidence in context, considered the defence contention and the post-incident texts and calls, and relied on independent corroboration from the complainant's brother and Constable Paki which was materially consistent with the complainant and inconsistent with the appellant. Those findings provided an adequate evidential and reasoning basis to reject the appellant's account and uphold the convictions, so no miscarriage of justice occurred.
10 Dec 2021

COTTER v POLICE [2021] NZHC 1532

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1532
Court

High Court

The Court held the trial Judge properly accepted the complainant's contemporaneous statement and the evidence of the constable as reliable; defence case and key points about intoxication, retraction and aggressor status had been put to the complainant and explored at trial; alleged failures of counsel were tactical or peripheral and did not create a real risk that the verdict was affected; Ms Rasmussen's affidavit was neither fresh nor material; accordingly no miscarriage of justice occurred and the appeal was dismissed.
26 Jul 2021

STEVENS v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZCA 340

Citation

[2021] NZCA 340
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because no matter of general or public importance was raised, Cooke J had comprehensively addressed the alleged errors and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the lone Moses point either post‑dates the sentencing decision or would not materially affect the outcome.
31 Jul 2020

REID v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 1917

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1917
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge provided adequate reasons, appropriately limited reliance to uncontested or reasonably inferable matters, correctly assessed that the prosecution negated any reasonable need for the appellant to act in self‑defence (he could have withdrawn and was materially stronger), and did not apply an incorrect legal test or impose a duty to retreat; any imperfect wording did not constitute legal error.
24 May 2019

YUSUKE (DAVID) SENA v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2019] NZSC 55

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 575
Court

Supreme Court

Section 232(2)(b) must be applied as a rehearing-style review for judge-alone trials such that adequate reasons showing the judge's assessment of the evidence are required; where reasons mischaracterise or fail to resolve critical factual disputes so as to mis-assess the evidence and create a real risk the outcome was affected (miscarriage of justice), convictions must be quashed. Applying that standard, the trial judge's treatment of the 9 January 2016 evidence was deficient and the resulting convictions miscarried, therefore appeal allowed, convictions quashed and new trial directed.
18 Feb 2019

AWATERE v NZ POLICE [2019] NZHC 194

Citation

[2019] NZHC 194
Court

High Court

Because the record was incomplete and the District Court did not provide adequate, recorded reasons explaining why credibility findings rejected the appellant's account, the High Court could not safely determine the matter on the record and, rather than remit, quashed the conviction.
10 Oct 2017

BUTCH PET FOODS LTD v MAC MOTORS LTD [2017] NZHC 2473

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2473
Court

High Court

On rehearing the Court accepted the trial judge's credibility assessments and expert findings of the respondent experts (Dr Jonathan Smith and Mr Timothy Smithson). The physical and metallurgical evidence supported a bilateral shock‑loading fatigue mechanism consistent with repeated driver abuse (stall‑stopping/roll‑starting) rather than progressive loosening from under‑torque or imbalance caused by a retained transport bolt or missing locator dowel. The appellant failed to prove negligence on balance. The Court also applied r14.12 and authorities on recoverable expert disbursements to vary t…
29 Aug 2017

COMPLAINANT A v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2017] NZCA 373

Citation

[2017] NZCA 373
Court

Court of Appeal

Dispensation of security for costs was declined because the appellant had effectively consented to the suppression order as evidenced by his prior communications, making the appeal unlikely to succeed; a practical alternative remedy in the High Court existed given the original order was made without full argument; and a subsequent High Court judgment further reduced any prospect that a solvent appellant would continue, therefore dispensation was not necessary to preserve access.
4 May 2017

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v LINDA GALLAGHER [2017] NZSC 63

Citation

[2017] NZSC 63
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is dismissed because the Court of Appeal had expressed a view on the reservation of leave, this Court provided a plausible explanation for the original orders, and the applicant failed to show a credible miscarriage of justice that would justify recalling the judgment.
27 Oct 2016

LEIDEN CHEYNE OʼSULLIVAN v R [2016] NZSC 141

Citation

[2016] NZSC 141
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because the original judgment correctly declined jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time and, regarding the leap‑frog application, there were no exceptional circumstances, no matter of general or public importance, no risk of substantial miscarriage of justice and the merits were weak; the Court's brief general reasons satisfied s 16(2).