High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the Judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances (PDF, 211 KB). If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1654
Date of Judgment
21 June 2024
Summary
High Court agrees with Environment Court's finding that the Kāpiti Coast District Council acted beyond its powers when using an intensification planning instrument to list a company's land as wāhi tapu in schedule 9 of its district plan. The listing was quashed accordingly.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1612
Date of Judgment
18 June 2024
Summary
Mr Taylor sentenced to six months' imprisonment on one charge of burglary and to four years and 10 months' imprisonment on the charge of manslaughter to be served concurrently.
Case name
Case number
[2022] NZHC 2968
Summary
In issue was an order suppressing identity of a sitting District Court judge on basis that publication of their connection to the defendant creates a real risk to the defendant’s safety in prison. The Court reviewed the order under s 208(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Held: there has been a material change in circumstances in the duration of time defendant has been remanded in custody without evidence of safety risk. Two stage test: first threshold test not made out; defendant did not a establish real and appreciable risk to his safety from publication. Second limb: interests of justice, public interest in relationship, do not weigh in favour of suppression. Suppression order revoked.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1421
Date of Judgment
31 May 2024
Summary
Sentencing - the offender had been found guilty of being a party to a murder committed during the aggravated robbery of a person from whom the offender's associate was attempting to steal drugs and money - HELD that although s 104(1)(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged, it would be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment because a minimum term of ten years imprisonment would ordinarily have been imposed and the Crown has never alleged that the principal offender intended to kill the victim - offender sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of ten years imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1419
Date of Judgment
31 May 2024
Summary
Sentencing - the offender had been convicted of the murder of a person whom he had shot whilst endeavouring to steal drugs and money - although s 104(1)(d) of the Sentencing Act 2002 was engaged, it would be manifestly unjust to impose a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment given the fact that the minimum term of 12 years would ordinarily be imposed and the Crown did not allege the offender had intentionally killed the victim - offender sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum term of 12 years imprisonment before being eligible to apply for parole.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1313
Date of Judgment
24 May 2024
Summary
Fluoride Free New Zealand and NZ Doctors Speaking Out with Science (NZDSOS) applied for directions/orders that the reintroduction of fluoride into the Hastings District Council urban water supply in April 2024 was unlawful, unreasonable, and in contravention of the right to refuse medical treatment.
This case was not about fluoridating water in Aotearoa New Zealand, or whether such fluoridation is a justified limit on the right to refuse medical treatment.
Held: Complying with a direction that has been ruled valid but is being reconsidered due to an error of law, cannot be presumptively unlawful.
Held: The interpretation the applicants' contended for (to read in a discretion to the mandatory statutory language of compliance) could not be sustained. Neither s 6 of the Bill of the Rights as applied by the Supreme Court in Fitzgerald or the principle of legality, allowed for this interpretation.
Held: it was rational and reasonable for Hastings District Council to not seek an extension to the period of compliance, and for the Director-General to not offer such extensions unilaterally.
This case was not about fluoridating water in Aotearoa New Zealand, or whether such fluoridation is a justified limit on the right to refuse medical treatment.
Held: Complying with a direction that has been ruled valid but is being reconsidered due to an error of law, cannot be presumptively unlawful.
Held: The interpretation the applicants' contended for (to read in a discretion to the mandatory statutory language of compliance) could not be sustained. Neither s 6 of the Bill of the Rights as applied by the Supreme Court in Fitzgerald or the principle of legality, allowed for this interpretation.
Held: it was rational and reasonable for Hastings District Council to not seek an extension to the period of compliance, and for the Director-General to not offer such extensions unilaterally.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1289
Date of Judgment
22 May 2024
Summary
Sentencing of Motu Smith for murder and other charges; Smith found guilty at trial; Smith committed series of offending including impeding breathing, aggravated robbery, robbery, two charges of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle, providing false details to the police and murder; Smith unlawfully entered victim's apartment with intention of stealing vehicle; victim was a stranger to Smith; Smith began altercation with victim; while victim unconscious, Smith inflicted a stab wound and deep cut on neck of victim; Smith left victim fatally wounded but alive; Court received psychological reports and s 27 cultural report; reports identified potential causative factors including cultural deprivation, economic deprivation, normalisation of violence and alcohol use, normalisation of gang activity, familial dysfunction, absence of adult supervision and early use of drugs and alcohol, childhood sexual abuse, mental health issues and alcohol and methamphetamine addictions.
HELD: s 104(1)(c) and (g) engaged as Smith unlawfully entered victim's dwelling place and victim was particularly vulnerable being much older and smaller than Smith and unconscious when stabbed; 17-year MPI held manifestly unjust due to personal background and mental health; 15 per cent deduction given for these factors; sentenced to life imprisonment with MPI of 14 years six months; sentenced to two years nine months for impeding breathing; sentenced to three years two months for aggravated burglary; sentenced to two years and four months for robbery; sentenced to 12 months for unlawfully taking motor vehicles and convicted and discharged on charge of providing false details to police
HELD: s 104(1)(c) and (g) engaged as Smith unlawfully entered victim's dwelling place and victim was particularly vulnerable being much older and smaller than Smith and unconscious when stabbed; 17-year MPI held manifestly unjust due to personal background and mental health; 15 per cent deduction given for these factors; sentenced to life imprisonment with MPI of 14 years six months; sentenced to two years nine months for impeding breathing; sentenced to three years two months for aggravated burglary; sentenced to two years and four months for robbery; sentenced to 12 months for unlawfully taking motor vehicles and convicted and discharged on charge of providing false details to police
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1253
Date of Judgment
20 May 2024
Summary
Five years' imprisonment for manslaughter (starting point of six and a half years). Victim's conduct affected starting point and sentence. Accessories given prison and home detention.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1228
Date of Judgment
16 May 2024
Summary
Sentencing notes in respect of two defendants (Quadye Hulbert and Billy Rielly) convicted of murder (Crimes Act 1961, ss 172 and 66) by jury.
Defendants had killed the victim as vengeance for the victim giving evidence against the captain of the local chapter of the Mongrel Mob in an unrelated proceeding.
Held, it would not be manifestly unjust to sentence the defendants to life imprisonment.
Held, a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of more than 17 years was necessary because several aggravating factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 are present: the murder involved calculated planning, unlawful entry into the victim's home, and the murder was retribution for giving honest evidence in Court.
Held, although both defendants stabbed the victim, Mr Hulbert was more culpable than Mr Rielly because Mr Hulbert was a patched member of the Mongrel Mob and Mr Rielly was his prospect.
The defendants' personal circumstances each justified discounts of one year to the MPI. Mr Hulbert sentenced to life imprisonment with an 18-year MPI.
Mr Rielly sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.
Defendants had killed the victim as vengeance for the victim giving evidence against the captain of the local chapter of the Mongrel Mob in an unrelated proceeding.
Held, it would not be manifestly unjust to sentence the defendants to life imprisonment.
Held, a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) of more than 17 years was necessary because several aggravating factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 are present: the murder involved calculated planning, unlawful entry into the victim's home, and the murder was retribution for giving honest evidence in Court.
Held, although both defendants stabbed the victim, Mr Hulbert was more culpable than Mr Rielly because Mr Hulbert was a patched member of the Mongrel Mob and Mr Rielly was his prospect.
The defendants' personal circumstances each justified discounts of one year to the MPI. Mr Hulbert sentenced to life imprisonment with an 18-year MPI.
Mr Rielly sentenced to life imprisonment with a 17-year MPI.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1204
Date of Judgment
15 May 2024
Summary
Disposition hearing, to determine whether defendant's detention in a hospital or security facility is necessary, following a finding on murder charge of act proved but not criminally responsible on account of insanity. HELD: Having considered all the circumstances of the case and the evidence of the health assessor psychiatrists, the Court is satisfied that it is necessary, in the interests of the public, and in the defendant's interests in the longer term, to make an order that the defendant be detained in a hospital as a special patient under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. Order accordingly.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 682
Date of Judgment
01 May 2024
Summary
Two hapū in Tokomaru Bay meet the test for customary marine title (CMT) and protectory customary rights (PCRs) under the Marine in Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. Further information sought by the Court before final GMT orders can be made and leave granted to address issues in relation to wāhi tapu protection and further PCR claims in Stage Two hearing.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 1015
Date of Judgment
30 April 2024
Summary
Mr Sopo sentenced after being found guilty by a jury on two charges: murder of his eight-month-old daughter; and assault of his daughter on at least one other prior occasion. At the time of offending Mr Sopo was 24 years old. The baby started crying and behaved like she was scared of Mr Sopo which made him angry. He responded by punching her several times in the stomach, including while keeping one hand behind her head while doing so. The medical evidence established that Mr Sopo's punches ruptured the baby's bowel, ultimately leading to inflammation and infection resulting in her death three days later. Mr Sopo did not seek medical attention for her.
Held: Sentence of life imprisonment. Minimum period of 17 years' imprisonment. Presumption of life imprisonment pursuant to s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 not manifestly unjust. Presumption not displaced by Mr Sopo's youth. Section 104 is engaged as Mr Sopo's daughter was particularly vulnerable and the murder was committed with a high degree of callous indifference, also shown by Mr Sopo's subsequent failure to obtain medical care for her. Minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is consistent with comparable cases, having regard to relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The statutory minimum of 17 years' imprisonment is not manifestly unjust. Concurrent sentence of three months' imprisonment for assault of the baby on another occasion by slapping her.
Held: Sentence of life imprisonment. Minimum period of 17 years' imprisonment. Presumption of life imprisonment pursuant to s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 not manifestly unjust. Presumption not displaced by Mr Sopo's youth. Section 104 is engaged as Mr Sopo's daughter was particularly vulnerable and the murder was committed with a high degree of callous indifference, also shown by Mr Sopo's subsequent failure to obtain medical care for her. Minimum period of imprisonment of 17 years is consistent with comparable cases, having regard to relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The statutory minimum of 17 years' imprisonment is not manifestly unjust. Concurrent sentence of three months' imprisonment for assault of the baby on another occasion by slapping her.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 959
Date of Judgment
29 April 2024
Summary
Major Gas Users’ Group Inc (MGUG) appealed two decisions of the Commerce Commission made under pt 4 of the Commerce Act 1986: one that amended the input methodologies for gas transmission and distribution services; and one that determined the default price-quality path for gas transmission and distribution services. Both decisions were made in response to government signalling on the phase-out of natural gas because of climate change. The effect of the input methodologies decision was to enable the Commission to adjust the asset lives of gas pipeline assets. The effect of the default price-quality path decision was to utilise that adjustment to bring forward depreciation of gas pipeline assets. The appeal from the input methodologies decision operates under s 52Z of the Commerce Act so can only succeed if the Court is satisfied that there is an amended or substituted input methodology that is materially better in meeting the purpose of pt 4, set out in s 52A, or the purpose of input methodologies, set out in s 52R of the Act. The appeal from the default price-quality path decision operates under s 91(1B) of the Act so can only succeed if the appellant can show the Commission made an error of law.
Appeal from the input methodologies decision dismissed. The Court found MGUG’s proposals would not be materially better at meeting the purposes set out in s 52A or s 52R of the Commerce Act. The decision itself was not inconsistent with the purposes set out in s 52A or s 52R of the Commerce Act as MGUG submitted; it promotes the long-term benefit of the relevant consumers by facilitating the ongoing provision of gas transmission and distribution services at prices which reflect the long-run costs of supplying them, particularly in the face of the risk of asset stranding that climate change, and government responses to it, pose. In particular, stranding risk is not otherwise provided for in the input methodologies, the decision was not premature and it does not incentivize excessive investment. MGUG’s first proposal, to leave the asset valuation input methodologies unchanged, was not materially better; while it would allow consumers to pay lower prices in the short run, it would compromise the safety and reliability of the service over the longer term by undermining supplier incentives to invest now and in the future. MGUG’s second proposal, to only apply the amended input methodologies to new investments, was also not materially better; it would still put at risk the substantial ongoing investments required from suppliers to maintain gas pipeline services into the future. Finally, MGUG’s third proposal, to refer the input methodologies back to the Commission under s 52Z(3)(b)(iii) of the Act, was not materially better; the options presented by MGUG about the directions the Court could provide the Commission in making such a referral failed to make good on suppliers’ prior expectations of ex ante compensation for the risk of asset stranding and could, as a result, undermine investor confidence in the regulatory system.
Appeal of the default price-quality path decision dismissed; there was no error of law involved.
Appeal from the input methodologies decision dismissed. The Court found MGUG’s proposals would not be materially better at meeting the purposes set out in s 52A or s 52R of the Commerce Act. The decision itself was not inconsistent with the purposes set out in s 52A or s 52R of the Commerce Act as MGUG submitted; it promotes the long-term benefit of the relevant consumers by facilitating the ongoing provision of gas transmission and distribution services at prices which reflect the long-run costs of supplying them, particularly in the face of the risk of asset stranding that climate change, and government responses to it, pose. In particular, stranding risk is not otherwise provided for in the input methodologies, the decision was not premature and it does not incentivize excessive investment. MGUG’s first proposal, to leave the asset valuation input methodologies unchanged, was not materially better; while it would allow consumers to pay lower prices in the short run, it would compromise the safety and reliability of the service over the longer term by undermining supplier incentives to invest now and in the future. MGUG’s second proposal, to only apply the amended input methodologies to new investments, was also not materially better; it would still put at risk the substantial ongoing investments required from suppliers to maintain gas pipeline services into the future. Finally, MGUG’s third proposal, to refer the input methodologies back to the Commission under s 52Z(3)(b)(iii) of the Act, was not materially better; the options presented by MGUG about the directions the Court could provide the Commission in making such a referral failed to make good on suppliers’ prior expectations of ex ante compensation for the risk of asset stranding and could, as a result, undermine investor confidence in the regulatory system.
Appeal of the default price-quality path decision dismissed; there was no error of law involved.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 853
Summary
Sentence for manslaughter, burglary and two counts of aggravated assault. Offender entered home through back window late at night. He was discovered in the victim's granddaughter's bedroom by her other granddaughter. The occupants of the house struggled with the offender to stop him from leaving. The victim had a permanent line attached to her jugular that was used for dialysis treatment. Amidst the struggle this was damaged, and she lost a large amount of blood in a short period of time.
HELD: End sentence of three years seven months. A starting point of six years six months was appropriate; five years for manslaughter uplifted 18 months for burglary and assaults. The offending was serious because it involved domestic burglary late at night with sexual intent, but it did not involve serious physical violence. Cumulative 20 per cent discount for personal mitigating features and 25 per cent discount for guilty plea.
HELD: End sentence of three years seven months. A starting point of six years six months was appropriate; five years for manslaughter uplifted 18 months for burglary and assaults. The offending was serious because it involved domestic burglary late at night with sexual intent, but it did not involve serious physical violence. Cumulative 20 per cent discount for personal mitigating features and 25 per cent discount for guilty plea.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 940
Date of Judgment
26 April 2024
Summary
Mr Harder made application for pre-proceedings discovery and/or examination of lawyers involved in Pike River Mine tragedy for purposes of intended recall of judgment. The decision which was the object of the intended recall had granted access to all documents on the court file relating to the successful judicial review in the Supreme Court concerning the withdrawal of the prosecution of a director of Pike River Coal Ltd and payment of reparation to victims and families of victims. Three issues were set down for determination by the court: whether there was jurisdiction; whether the applicant who was not a lawyer nor otherwise involved in the Judicial Review proceedings had standing; and whether application was procedurally improper and an abuse of process.
Held: the applicant had standing to bring the specific application as standing had already been established in the recall application, however there was no jurisdiction to grant the applications in the context of the underlying intended application and the application was an improper use of court process. Pre-proceedings discovery and examination processes not available in the context of the intended recall and access to court documents regime. Applicant had been successful in application for access to all court documents. Present applications were directed at re-opening Pike River Mine and suggested finance source, although no such specific claims presently contemplated. Not a proper use of court processes. Limited interim non-publication of persons referred to ordered.
Held: the applicant had standing to bring the specific application as standing had already been established in the recall application, however there was no jurisdiction to grant the applications in the context of the underlying intended application and the application was an improper use of court process. Pre-proceedings discovery and examination processes not available in the context of the intended recall and access to court documents regime. Applicant had been successful in application for access to all court documents. Present applications were directed at re-opening Pike River Mine and suggested finance source, although no such specific claims presently contemplated. Not a proper use of court processes. Limited interim non-publication of persons referred to ordered.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 931
Date of Judgment
24 April 2024
Summary
Minister for Children’s challenge to the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision to issue a summons succeeds.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 910
Date of Judgment
23 April 2024
Summary
Mr Rapson sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment on the charge of manslaughter, one year's imprisonment on each of the two drove dangerously causing injury charges. Remaining charges convicted and discharged.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 872
Date of Judgment
19 April 2024
Summary
Wright-Meldrum and Hawken sentenced to life imprisonment with an MPI of 10 years for the murder in 1995 of Angela Blackmoore.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 870
Date of Judgment
19 April 2024
Summary
Sentencing on conviction for motor manslaughter. Starting point of five years' imprisonment on basis of consistency with cases of similar 'act offending and aggravating factors of highly culpable driving (aggressive driving), habitually driving below an acceptable standard (driving without ever having held a licence and while forbidden) and irresponsible behaviour (throwing the victim from the bonnet of the car by swerving to escape, and failing to stop). Discounts granted for mitigating factors of preparedness to plead guilty, fledgling rehabilitative steps and impact of custody on defendant's children and remorse. End sentence of three years and three months' imprisonment.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 834
Date of Judgment
17 April 2024
Summary
An application for interim orders to prevent a diplomatic agent of the Myanmar junta from entering New Zealand is declined because there is no evidence supporting the underlying challenge to the validity of their accreditation to New Zealand.