19 Dec 2023
The High Court held the trial judge did not err: the judge properly applied caution to the child’s EVI, accepted credible and consistent parts, and reasonably preferred the expert medical opinion that the burn pattern was more likely caused by boiling water poured on a restrained child; taken together the evidence met the beyond reasonable doubt standard and there was no real risk the verdict was unsafe.
14 Sept 2023
Extension of time granted but leave to appeal dismissed because the applicants sought to advance a novel argument that was not raised or argued in the High Court or Court of Appeal, the case was litigated on concessions inconsistent with the new argument, and no miscarriage of justice arises to justify granting leave.
26 Apr 2023
On the evidence the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the $23,920 cash was directly or indirectly derived from the respondent's supply of methamphetamine and, because s50(1) mandates forfeiture where property is tainted, an assets forfeiture order was required and made vesting the cash (and accrued interest) in the Crown.
22 Feb 2023
The Court held there was sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of both murders either as a participant in a common purpose and/or by his assistance and involvement (including use/possession of the shotgun and concerted action with his brother), the trial Judge's directions (including on party liability, unanimity and standard of proof) were adequate and not prejudicial, and the life sentences with a 17-year minimum period of imprisonment were appropriate and not manifestly unjust.
21 Dec 2022
The Court declined to award costs because the successful appeal, even with a Crown concession of miscarriage of justice based on judicial misdirection, did not constitute the type of 'out of the ordinary' circumstances required to exercise the s 8 discretion in favour of the appellant; the retrial was aborted due to the complainant's unavailability for personal reasons unrelated to prosecutorial fault, and ordinary criminal appeals are most unlikely to attract costs orders.
28 Apr 2022
The High Court declined judicial review because the case was not exceptional; the question under s 338(4) RMA of when the contravention became known is a factual judicial evaluation not governed by the criminal standard of proof and, if any evidential standard applies, it is the balance of probabilities; the District Court's factual findings that the charges were filed within time were open on the evidence and the judicial review application was dismissed.
8 Apr 2022
Detective's after‑care comments were unwise and risky but did not render the defendant's waiver of counsel ineffective nor causatively produce the admissions; the second interview was admissible; the trial judge's directions on proof beyond reasonable doubt and on the immunised witness were adequate and not misleading; the minimum periods and sentences were within the available range; no miscarriage of justice occurred and appeals dismissed.
18 Mar 2022
On the balance of probabilities the Court upheld the High Court's factual findings that significant criminal activity (drug offending, money laundering and tax evasion) existed from at least March 2009; unexplained deposits and transfers tainted the CMC and bank accounts and funded luxury assets; repayments to the revolving credit secured on Ireland Road were made from tainted accounts and thereby tainted Ireland Road; appellant was knowingly or wilfully blind to unlawful benefits; accordingly assets and profit forfeiture orders (maximum recoverable amount $280,259) were valid and the appeal…
27 Aug 2021
On a holistic assessment the Judge properly accepted K's evidence on the balance of probabilities based on multiple corroborating strands (age disparity and vulnerability, repeated attempts to leave, police family harm reports, social worker s132 reports and documentary evidence), concluded N had inflicted family violence and that a protection order and supervised contact were necessary to protect K and the children's welfare pending N's completion of rehabilitative courses.
31 May 2021
The strike-out application was declined. The Court held the Criminal Procedure Act does not by necessary implication preclude pre-trial judicial review of s147 decisions; availability of statutory appeals generally affects the remedy rather than jurisdiction; absent improper purpose or clear untenability the proceeding is not an abuse of process; a genuine question of law exists regarding the legal test, burden and standard applicable to s338(4) RMA constructive knowledge enquiries, so the matter should proceed rather than be struck out.