New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Victim protection

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2023

O’ROURKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 693

Citation

[2023] NZHC 693
Court

High Court

The High Court found the electronic monitoring conditions lacked sufficient nexus to the statutory purposes in s93(3): GPS monitoring did not materially promote rehabilitation, had limited utility to reduce general risk to unspecified members of the public, and was not necessary to protect the victims given other conditions. The GPS conditions were therefore deleted as disproportionate and replaced with targeted, less intrusive conditions (medical attendance and notification of relationships).
23 Mar 2023

WHICHMAN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 603

Citation

[2023] NZHC 603
Court

High Court

The EM special condition was lawful and properly imposed because it was tailored to Whichman's demonstrated risk to the identified victim, served a legitimate protective function (deterrence and early detection), was the least restrictive means appropriate given the risk, and its duration and scope were proportionate and not more onerous or longer than required for victim safety under Sentencing Act s93(3) and Parole Act principles; embarrassment or impediments to reintegration did not outweigh the protection required.
13 Oct 2021

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KEPU [2021] NZHC 2745

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2745
Court

High Court

On the provisional and untested evidence available the Court was satisfied that the respondent demonstrated a pervasive pattern of serious violent offending and posed a very high risk of committing a relevant violent offence; accordingly an interim supervision order was granted pending the ESO determination and the Court imposed standard conditions (excluding the standard condition prohibiting association with persons under 16) and specified special conditions including approved residence, geographic restriction north of Warkworth, electronic monitoring, psychological assessment and treatment…
31 Jul 2020

KINGI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 1896

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1896
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed; given the defendant's pattern of repeat family‑violence offending, the demonstrated risk to the protected person, and the absence of any suitable approved address that would allow safe community‑based supervision, the High Court concluded the District Court's 11‑month imprisonment sentence was not manifestly excessive and need not be substituted for an intensive supervision/home detention sentence though leave to apply for home detention remains available.
16 Apr 2019

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v KAREKARE [2019] NZHC 849

Citation

[2019] NZHC 849
Court

High Court

The Judge erred in declining to make a protection order because the statutory conditions of s 123B were met (conviction for a domestic violence offence, no current protection order, victim did not object) and given the defendant's history of violence and the victim's reasonable fear of future violence it was necessary for the victim's protection; the High Court therefore allowed the Crown's appeal and imposed a protection order.
11 Apr 2016

R v BURRETT [2016] NZHC 636

Citation

[2016] NZHC 636
Court

High Court

Permanent suppression of the names and any identifying particulars of School X, School Y and Employer Z was warranted under s202 because publication would be likely to lead to identification of victims and cause undue hardship to victims, their families, other students and staff; the public interest in open reporting did not require disclosure to fairly report the proceedings.
22 May 2007

KUPU V WAITAKERE DISTRICT COURT AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-001731

Citation

openlaw-6fc3f5ec_fb38_4a2b_a23f_97b8939955d9.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a single preliminary hearing covers both nominated sexual offences and related non-sexual offences which are so closely connected in time and place, s185C applies to require the complainant's evidence by written statement and it was not an error of law for the District Court judge to refuse viva voce cross-examination as that would defeat the statutory protective purpose.

New Zealand Case Law

O’ROURKE v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 693

WHICHMAN v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 603

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v KEPU [2021] NZHC 2745

KINGI v POLICE [2020] NZHC 1896

SOLICITOR-GENERAL v KAREKARE [2019] NZHC 849

R v BURRETT [2016] NZHC 636

KUPU V WAITAKERE DISTRICT COURT AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2007-404-001731