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 name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 3499
Date of Judgment
21 November 2024
Summary
Sentencing - the offender had pleaded guilty to a charge of murdering his former partner and the mother of their six-year-old son - the offender had caused the victim's death by stabbing her on seven occasions after they became involved in a verbal altercation - the offending occurred in the victim's home in circumstances where other members of the victim's family were present but did not witness the stabbing take place HELD that although the offending was bad, it did not reach the level required to engage s 104(1 )( e) of the Sentencing Act 2002 - the aggravating features of the offending meant that a minimum term of imprisonment of 14 years six months was appropriate - discount of 12 months given for guilty plea together with a further discount of six months to reflect personal factors identified in reports tendered to the Court - offender sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to serve 13 years before being eligible to apply for parole.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 3110
Date of Judgment
31 October 2024
Summary
See media release
Media Release
- MR [2024] NZHC 3110 (PDF, 185 KB)
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 3069
Date of Judgment
21 October 2024
Summary
Approval of settlement under s 95 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. Two respondents ordered to meet a profit forfeiture order of $4 million in connection with the derivation of benefits from significant criminal offending. That offending confined to convictions already entered against the respondents with one additional incident: contravention of a prohibition issued by WorkSafe on 16 October 2015.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 3016
Date of Judgment
16 October 2024
Summary
An application for a writ of habeas corpus was not finally determined in Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v Shaw (Results) and (Reasons). As Mr Shaw continued to deteriorate, an urgent hearing was convened on Sunday to continue the habeas corpus application, or alternatively, to pursue interim declarations under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. This is the Reasons judgment in that application (Shaw v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections).
Held: It is not appropriate to grant an application for habeas corpus to challenge the conditions of imprisonment.
Held: The Court will be cautious before intervening in operational decisions in the custodial environment by requiring Corrections to take positive steps.
Held: The test for interim orders in judicial review is whether the orders are necessary to preserve the position of the applicants. In all the circumstances, the position to not consume fluids in a certain part of the prison was a decision by Mr Shaw, that he could choose to change. This was not a comparable case with other applications for interim or urgent judicial review declarations. There was no identifiable position necessary to protect.
Noted: The Court has endeavoured to uphold and respect Mr Shaw's wishes in the other substantive application.
Held: It is not appropriate to grant an application for habeas corpus to challenge the conditions of imprisonment.
Held: The Court will be cautious before intervening in operational decisions in the custodial environment by requiring Corrections to take positive steps.
Held: The test for interim orders in judicial review is whether the orders are necessary to preserve the position of the applicants. In all the circumstances, the position to not consume fluids in a certain part of the prison was a decision by Mr Shaw, that he could choose to change. This was not a comparable case with other applications for interim or urgent judicial review declarations. There was no identifiable position necessary to protect.
Noted: The Court has endeavoured to uphold and respect Mr Shaw's wishes in the other substantive application.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2976
Date of Judgment
11 October 2024
Summary
Following an oral decision at the conclusion of Thursday's hearing, the Court has confirmed the validity of Mr Francis Shaw's advance directive to receive no medical treatment or intervention for the duration of his politically motivated hunger strike. Mr Shaw is a serving prisoner, who has been striking for 103 days. Corrections and Health New Zealand are entitled to rely on, and act in accordance with Mr Shaw's clearly stated wishes.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2951
Date of Judgment
11 October 2024
Summary
Sentencing on three charges: kidnapping, refusing to provide a blood specimen, and driving while prohibited. Defendant forcibly restrained victim from getting out of defendant's car. Victim was frightened of the defendant and vulnerable. Starting point 2 years and 9 months for kidnapping. One month added for driving offending. Discounts of 15% for age and prospect of rehabilitation, and 5 months for time on electronically monitored bail. Home detention appropriate because of the defendant's age and prospect of rehabilitation, and because the defendant has experienced incarceration in consequence of offending. End sentence 12 months' home detention. Disqualification period of 6 months.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2910
Date of Judgment
08 October 2024
Summary
Sentencing on two charges: manslaughter, and reckless driving causing injury. Defendant consumed alcohol and cannabis, drove at extraordinary speeds, overtook vehicles recklessly, including on a double yellow line, and caused significant injury. Case a very bad example of its kind. Starting point six and a half years' imprisonment. Discounts of 25 percent for guilty pleas, six percent for remorse and 10 percent for rehabilitative efforts. One-month uplift for previous convictions. End sentences of: three years and 11 months' imprisonment for the manslaughter; and two years' imprisonment, to be served concurrently, for the reckless injury. Disqualification period of four years.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2732
Date of Judgment
20 September 2024
Summary
Darleen Tana’s judicial review application is declined. Investigative process which led to her resignation as Green Party member was lawful, authorised, fair and reasonable. Mrs Tana was not ousted from the party.
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2623
Date of Judgment
11 September 2024
Summary
Successful application for judicial review. Applicant sought a declaration that the decision of Auckland Council was unlawful and orders relating to the setting aside of the Committee's decision and to remove the appointed director. Decision concerned the appointment of a director to a council-controlled organisation.
HELD: The applicant's first and third grounds were unsuccessful. The applicant succeeded on its second ground that the Committee failed to take into account a relevant mandatory consideration, namely whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of Watercare. Committee decision declared unlawful and set aside.
HELD: The applicant's first and third grounds were unsuccessful. The applicant succeeded on its second ground that the Committee failed to take into account a relevant mandatory consideration, namely whether knowledge of tikanga Māori may be relevant to the governance of Watercare. Committee decision declared unlawful and set aside.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2534
Date of Judgment
05 September 2024
Summary
Sentencing on guilty plea for attempted murder following sentence indication. Starting point of 40 months' imprisonment on basis of consistency with cases of comparable offending and aggravating factor of deliberate intervention to end the life of a vulnerable person already receiving medical treatment. Discounts granted for guilty plea and for mitigating factors of previous good character (reduced due to history of family violence) and remorse. Discounts resulted in a short-term sentence of 22 months' imprisonment. End sentence of 11 months' home detention.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2400
Date of Judgment
27 August 2024
Summary
Successful application for declarations of and pecuniary penalties on breaches of ss 9C(1) and 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. The contravening conduct related to fees set by the bank in its standard form consumer credit contracts without reference to the Act’s requirements. It was agreed between the parties that the bank overcharged some 42,000 customers by approximately $3.6 million. The first consideration for the Court in imposing a pecuniary penalty is the nature and extent of the contraventions. The bank’s conduct resulting in the contraventions is characterised as reckless on the basis its credit and default fees were set without due regard to the Act. The breaches of s 41 are serious in the spectrum of relevant conduct under s 107 A. Section 9C(1) breaches would be at a lower, but significant, level of seriousness. The maximum penalty for contravening conduct under is prescribed as $600,000 under the Act and the approaches taken to pecuniary penalties in other regimes are not instructive due to the material differences in the penalty ranges. Traditional sentencing methodology of setting a starting point and then adjusting for individual circumstances is adopted.
Held: Starting point range of $3.9 million-$4.2 million. The starting point is to be assessed according to progressive 30 per cent bands which would accommodate contraventions of low, moderate and high seriousness as is the approach taken in other penalty regimes. The contraventions can be located, on balance, in the same range of 55-60 per cent of the maximum: the s 41 breaches being toward the higher end of the moderate band and the s 9C(1) breaches relating to less grave conduct with increased culpability. A concurrent approach is taken to the breaches to meet sentencing guidelines. No aggravating factors, although the Court had regard to the bank’s involvement of the Commission. 25 per cent discount was given for the bank’s admission to the alleged contraventions. 10 per cent discount was given for the bank’s accountability, rehabilitation and remorse. 5 per cent discount given for the bank’s cooperation with the Commission’s investigation. Orders made for pecuniary penalty of $2.47 million.
Held: Starting point range of $3.9 million-$4.2 million. The starting point is to be assessed according to progressive 30 per cent bands which would accommodate contraventions of low, moderate and high seriousness as is the approach taken in other penalty regimes. The contraventions can be located, on balance, in the same range of 55-60 per cent of the maximum: the s 41 breaches being toward the higher end of the moderate band and the s 9C(1) breaches relating to less grave conduct with increased culpability. A concurrent approach is taken to the breaches to meet sentencing guidelines. No aggravating factors, although the Court had regard to the bank’s involvement of the Commission. 25 per cent discount was given for the bank’s admission to the alleged contraventions. 10 per cent discount was given for the bank’s accountability, rehabilitation and remorse. 5 per cent discount given for the bank’s cooperation with the Commission’s investigation. Orders made for pecuniary penalty of $2.47 million.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2392
Date of Judgment
26 August 2024
Summary
Application under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA) for profit forfeiture orders and, in the alternative, asset forfeiture orders. Applicant alleges the first respondent is the leader of the Head Hunters, a criminal organisation, and has knowingly received a portion of criminal proceeds obtained by other gang members from their significant criminal offending. The respondents argue this is not the case. Specifically, they claim the first respondent is not the leader of the Head Hunters, has no knowledge or control over gang members' criminal offending, and has not received any unlawful benefit or criminal proceeds from such offending. The respondents also challenge the admissibility of the applicant's evidence, claiming it to be inadmissible hearsay or expert opinion evidence. Respondents have also applied for a variation of the restraining orders over legal retainers deposited with respondents' legal counsel, so they can be used to pay their legal fees; the variation is opposed by the applicant, alleging the retainers are proceeds of crime. Held: Application for profit forfeiture orders is allowed. Applicant has established, on balance of probabilities, that the respondents have knowingly benefitted from significant criminal offending. In particular, applicant has established the first respondent is the leader of the Head Hunters and has received a portion of gang members' criminal proceeds. Applicant's hearsay and expert opinion evidence is held to be admissible under Evidence Act 2006 and High Court Rules 2016 (HCR), their admission being in the interests of justice and substantially helpful in ascertaining relevant facts (s 20 Evidence Act and rr 19.10 and 7.30 of the HCR). Although there is some adjustment to the quantum of the profit forfeiture orders, the applicant has largely succeeded in obtaining the full amount sought and is entitled to the presumption under s 53 of the CPRA; a presumption the respondents have not rebutted. Respondents' application for variation of the restraining orders is declined, as that determination cannot be separated from the substantive finding that the legal retainers are, on the balance of probabilities, the proceeds of crime and should be subject to profit forfeiture orders.