New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reverse onus

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2020

BOON HOOI CHEAH v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2020] NZCA 253

Citation

[2020] NZCA 253
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that s53 places the onus on the respondent to rebut the Commissioner's stated value by adducing evidence of the actual amount of unlawful benefit on the balance of probabilities; the High Court did not err in finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption and did not establish undue hardship under s56, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the forfeiture orders affirmed.
4 Oct 2019

TERRY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2517

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2517
Court

High Court

The Judge's adverse credibility and reliability findings were justified by inconsistent statements, photographic and police evidence showing a dog box with visibility, and witness observations; once hunting and dogs on the vehicle were established the statutory presumption applied and the appellant failed to discharge the onus to prove he was not hunting, therefore convictions for trespass and hunting were upheld.
3 Oct 2019

ZIMMERMAN v R [2019] NZHC 2518

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2518
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant did not discharge the reverse onus in the Bail Act given his extensive offending history (including multiple offences committed on bail), recent breaches, mental health and self‑harm risk, the serious nature and strength of the Crown's case, and because the proposed EM Bail address (even with the occupant's assurances) would leave the appellant unsupervised for prolonged periods and therefore cannot sufficiently mitigate the risk to public/victim safety or the appellant's own safety.
15 Nov 2017

L AND T V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2017] NZCA 517

Citation

[2017] NZCA 517
Court

Court of Appeal

Although the 'subsequent child' provisions did not apply, the Family Court judge's reasoning, read as a whole and supported by the social worker's evidence of parental mental health, criminal history, transience and substance use, provided an adequate basis under s14(1)(a),(b),(f) to make the s78 interim custody order; habeas corpus was not the correct remedy for collateral factual challenges and the appeal is dismissed.
16 Dec 2004

SILOATA V R SC SC CRI 8/2004

Citation

openlaw-9ad4e701_1158_48a6_a14e_5c1bccce9d9d.pdf
Court

Supreme Court

Where a jury is not unanimous on whether the accused has rebutted the s6(6) presumption the correct outcome is a hung jury (discharge for failure to reach a verdict), not a conviction by default; unanimity requirement applies equally to the persuasive onus placed on the accused.

New Zealand Case Law

BOON HOOI CHEAH v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2020] NZCA 253

TERRY v POLICE [2019] NZHC 2517

ZIMMERMAN v R [2019] NZHC 2518

L AND T V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN, ORANGA TAMARIKI [2017] NZCA 517

SILOATA V R SC SC CRI 8/2004