11 Oct 2022
The High Court held the District Court Judge's inference that the appellant either knew the bracelet was stolen or was reckless as to that fact was open on the evidence; the Judge's misstatement about the exact moment to assess knowledge was immaterial given the short interval between acquisition and surrender; no miscarriage of justice was shown, so the appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
12 Sept 2022
Conviction for strangulation quashed because the Judge's reasons were insufficient on mens rea: the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that the hoodie pull was brief and possibly accidental and the Judge had not established the appellant actually appreciated the real risk of impeding breathing (required for recklessness). The assault conviction was upheld because s53 did not apply: the victim's possession of the key had effectively become the relevant possession immediately prior to the use of force and the choking was part of an assault beyond the limited scope of a possessory reclaim…
6 Jul 2022
The trial Judge's rejection of the appellant's unsworn interview account was open on the evidence given the combination of factors (late hour, screwdriver in ignition, broken quarter glass, mismatched registration details, implausible due diligence claim and vague source of vehicle) and thus proved recklessness; the previously undisclosed notebook and EVI were admitted as fresh evidence but would not have altered the outcome, so no miscarriage of justice occurred and the conviction stands.
11 Apr 2022
The Court found no material error in the sentencing judge's reasoning: the offending constituted high‑end recklessness with a real risk to officers' safety, the judge properly considered reparation and comparative cases, and the combination of two months' community detention, 150 hours' community work and $5,000 reparation was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate for deterrence and denunciation.
14 Dec 2021
The District Court correctly applied the orthodox test for subjective recklessness (per Cameron): to convict under s47 the prosecution must prove an identified individual appreciated the real possibility that the relevant conduct would cause death or serious injury; background breaches admissible under s48 do not substitute for that individual foresight, mitigation evidence is a factual matter not governed by a special legal rule, and the proposed appeal raised factual issues rather than errors of law, so leave to appeal is declined.
21 Sept 2021
The High Court found no error in the trial judge's factual assessment: photographic and police evidence showed the ground was dry making the mud explanation implausible, the appellant's angry conduct was established, and reversing at speed and leaving without stopping amounted to reckless driving that satisfied the mens rea for wilful damage, so the conviction was upheld.
7 May 2021
The offender inflicted a single spontaneous high-force impact causing catastrophic brain injury to a particularly vulnerable 17-month-old child; although the evidence did not support an inference of intention to kill and the offending was out of character, s104 applies and, given the seriousness, absence of remorse and need for denunciation and deterrence, a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment is not manifestly unjust; accordingly impose life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.
19 Nov 2020
The High Court held the District Court Judge committed errors of law by failing to consider material aggravating factors when assessing gravity (fire ban, proximity to vegetation, warnings from associates, defendant's pyrotechnic certification) and by accepting speculative consequences of conviction unsupported by evidence; therefore the discharge without conviction was unlawful, leave to appeal was granted, the discharge was set aside, a conviction for arson was entered and the matter remitted for sentencing.
28 Aug 2020
On the evidence the Judge was entitled to accept the police account that the complainant's funds were transferred into an account in the appellant's name and that the appellant gave a friend access to the account and card; providing that access in the absence of mitigating evidence was properly found to be reckless as to the funds' source, so no miscarriage of justice occurred and the conviction stands.
25 Feb 2020
The Court found Daniels occupied a leadership role with knowing oversight of a sophisticated laundering operation (particularised charged total ≈ NZD 1.3m) and set a starting point of six years, reduced by 16 months for plea/circumstances to an effective sentence of 4 years 8 months' imprisonment. The Court found Simpson, though less directly knowing, was reckless for the duration, abused his professional position as a lawyer and facilitated transfers (particularised charged total ≈ NZD 2.2m); the Court set a starting point of 4 years 6 months, applied a 15% mitigation for personal factors an…