New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Self-representation

Legal area

Court

6 Jul 2023

TAIT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 1748

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1748
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the District Court trial and verdicts were fair, the complainants' evidence supported convictions beyond reasonable doubt, there was no miscarriage of justice warranting overturning the convictions, the court record was properly amended to record the convictions, the nine-month supervision sentence was not wrong in principle but, pragmatically and because six months had already elapsed while the appeal was pending and given the appellant's health, the effective sentence is reduced to six months' supervision which has been served.
13 Jun 2023

PATEL v PATEL [2023] NZHC 1466

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1466
Court

High Court

The defendants, having successfully defended the derivative constructive trust claim, were entitled to costs on a 2B basis; the defendants' steps were reasonable and necessary; the plaintiff's self-representation and unproven assertion of financial hardship did not justify departure from the presumptive costs order; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs and disbursements totaling $58,866 with interest from judgment under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016.
29 Aug 2022

WESSELINGH v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2022] NZHC 2161

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2161
Court

High Court

The High Court held the trial judge's credibility findings and fact findings were rational and supported by the evidence, the judge's interventions and provision of routine information to a self-represented defendant were proper and did not produce a miscarriage of justice, exclusion of non‑witness statements as hearsay was correct, and therefore there was no ground under s232 to overturn the conviction.
22 Jun 2022

MARONG v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 1489

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1489
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to file the substantive affidavits required by r12.4(5) verifying his allegations and belief that the defendant had no defence, the statement of claim was unsuitably voluminous and mixed evidence and submissions, and genuine factual disputes exist that require discovery and oral evidence such that summary determination would be futile and contrary to the interests of justice.
16 May 2022

JACKSON v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2022] NZHC 1059

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1059
Court

High Court

As a party to the habeas corpus proceeding and being self-represented, the applicant is entitled under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 to inspect the electronic court file and to obtain copies of the documents contained therein; because the hearing was by teleconference and not recorded, no audio file or transcript exists.
27 Apr 2022

JD v A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE [2022] NZHC 826

Citation

[2022] NZHC 826
Court

High Court

The appellant was granted leave to give evidence on appeal because the evidence related to alleged procedural unfairness and was not new evidence on the substantive issues; the application for non-party discovery was declined because there is no statutory or rules basis to order such discovery on appeal absent exceptional circumstances and no exceptional circumstances or identified probative documents were shown.
26 Nov 2020

TIMOTI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The appeal was dismissed because the record contained admissible evidence establishing the offence, there was no error in the District Court's factual findings or sentencing, and the jurisdictional challenge was unargued and without merit.
17 Sept 2020

JP (CA146/2019) v R [2020] NZCA 426

Citation

[2020] NZCA 426
Court

Court of Appeal

The application to adduce further evidence is refused because the proposed material was not fresh, was largely inadmissible hearsay or opinion, and would not create a real risk of miscarriage of justice; there was no medical report to supply to the jury and amendment of dates and the stay were lawful and did not prejudice the verdicts.
11 Sept 2020

BIRCHALL v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2020] NZHC 2378

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2378
Court

High Court

Although the District Court erred by not inviting submissions and failing to address s 53, on rehearing of the issues the appellate court found no miscarriage of justice because the evidence proved the mechanic had possession under a lien and the appellant was not in peaceable possession nor showed belief in a claim of right, so s 53 did not apply and the conviction is upheld.
31 Jul 2020

COGLE v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1908

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1908
Court

High Court

Despite deficiencies in the plaintiffs' evidence and delay in seeking legal aid, the Court narrowly concluded that the interests of justice required an adjournment to permit legal representation for a complex 10-day positive defence hearing that raises potential self-incrimination and factual complexity; adjournment granted to 17 May 2021 on conditions including prompt legal aid application and reservation of costs issues.