New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Strict liability offences

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2021

REREWHAKAAITU FARM LIMITED v BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3004 [8 November 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3004
Court

High Court

The High Court held the charging document was not defective for failing to cite s 340 because s 338 creates the offence and s 340 operates to impute liability; late notice of reliance on vicarious liability did not produce a miscarriage of justice on these facts; however the trial judge breached natural justice by relying on an unpleaded 'second person check' requirement without putting that basis to defence witnesses, and because the judge's adverse finding on the lack of knowledge defence turned on that untested proposition the conviction could not stand; appeal allowed, conviction quashed,…
29 Mar 2021

LARASON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZHC 653

Citation

[2021] NZHC 653
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the elements of the strict liability speed offence were established (100 km/h in an 80 km/h area), the appellant failed to prove total absence of fault, the Land Transport Rule s9.2(2) legitimately excused repeater signs on the route (so the absence of repeaters did not negate liability), and ignorance of the speed limit did not constitute a defence; no miscarriage of justice occurred.
1 Jul 2020

VAN DER VEEN v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1534

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1534
Court

High Court

Section 57(3) requires destruction unless the circumstances at the time of the offence were exceptional; post-attack rehabilitation or assurances are irrelevant to that inquiry; a one-off failure to maintain effective control and an unprovoked attack in public are not exceptional, therefore the mandatory destruction order was correctly imposed.
3 Jun 2020

SMALL v STATISTICS NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 1209

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1209
Court

High Court

The evidence established the appellant received access codes and paper forms and nonetheless failed to supply his individual census particulars; the offence is strict liability so lack of intent did not absolve him; the District Court properly declined discharge because the direct and indirect consequences of conviction were not out of all proportion to the (low) gravity of the offending, and the fine was not manifestly excessive.
1 May 2020

AGRICOLA ENTERPRISES LTD AND JOSEPH MICHAEL MCDONALD v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2020] NZCA 136

Citation

[2020] NZCA 136
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court declined leave because the expert veterinary evidence was admissible and appropriately qualified and the factual findings of the trial judge, as upheld by Duffy J, meant there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice or question of general public importance warranting a second appeal.
12 Mar 2020

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v HILL [2020] NZCA 52

Citation

[2020] 3 NZLR 603
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that for s 57(3) the relevant "circumstances of the offence" are the immediate circumstances of the attack itself (equivalent to "circumstances of the attack"); events occurring after the attack (post‑attack training, changed management, assurances) are not part of those circumstances and therefore cannot justify avoiding a destruction order; on the facts the attack was unprovoked and nothing exceptional justified not ordering destruction.
5 Mar 2020

SHACKLETON v POLICE [2020] NZHC 384

Citation

[2020] NZHC 384
Court

High Court

Appeal allowed in part: the District Court's dismissal of the rehearing application was set aside; on the merits, the Dodge Ram was not a 'heavy motor vehicle' under Land Transport Act 1998 s2 so the applicable speed limit was 100 km/h and evidence of 123 km/h established guilt but with amended penalty; the RUC over-run was proven and, although regulations prescribe infringement fees, the Court retains sentencing discretion and substituted a reduced fine. Consequently the speeding infringement was amended and fines for both offences were reduced and re-imposed by this Court.
31 Oct 2019

Rafiq v Auckland Transport [2019] NZHC 2791

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2791
Court

High Court

Leave to bring a second appeal was refused because the proposed appeal raised no matter of general or public importance and there was no arguable miscarriage of justice: the Justices' findings were supported by the evidence, the District Court properly addressed and resolved the appellant's complaints and law, strict liability and the power to vary sentence were correctly applied and prior divergent High Court decision was distinguishable on its facts.
11 Oct 2019

SHARK EXPERIENCE LIMITED v PAUAMAC5 INCORPORATED [2019] NZSC 111

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR791
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the Wildlife Act's defined phrase 'hunt or kill' extends beyond the common-usage meaning of hunting or killing to include pursuing, disturbing and molesting protected wildlife irrespective of an ordinary hunting purpose, but on the material before the Court there was insufficient and contested factual foundation to sustain a declaratory judgment that shark cage diving using attractants is an offence under s 63A; accordingly the Court of Appeal declaration was set aside and the application to adduce further evidence was dismissed.
23 Aug 2019

COMMERCE COMMISSION v STEEL & TUBE HOLDINGS LTD [2019] NZHC 2098

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2098
Court

High Court

s45 could not be relied upon at sentencing to attribute the technical manager's deliberate state of mind to Steel & Tube because the offences under ss10 and 13 were strict liability and state of mind was not necessary to establish guilt; sentencing must assess corporate culpability via Sentencing Act factors and common law attribution where appropriate; on the facts senior management's conduct amounted to gross carelessness justifying a higher starting point than the District Court adopted; the District Court sentence was manifestly inadequate and is replaced with a global fine of NZD 2,009,2…