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 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.
Case name
Case number
[2024] NZHC 2317
Date of Judgment
19 August 2024
Summary
The plaintiffs are survivors of abuse which they say they suffered while in state care. They have requested access to their state care records from MSD, which has withheld or redacted parts of their records under the Privacy Act 1993 and the Privacy Act 2020. MSD says that reports and plans ordered by and furnished to courts need to be requested from the courts. The plaintiffs seek declarations that the Privacy Acts do not provide a basis for the relevant government agency to withhold from them their own personal information. The issue is whether the rights of claimants to access their personal information under the Privacy Acts are limited by specific provisions in welfare legislation and court rules. The High Court concludes they are not. Accordingly, the government agencies are bound by the Privacy Acts to respond to those persons’ requests. Unless a court has ordered that specific personal information not be provided to the person concerned, or another exception in the Privacy Acts applies, the agency must provide the information to the person concerned.
The Crown has changed its position in relation to this legal issue several times. And survivors of abuse in state care cannot reasonably be expected to have confidence in the Crown’s word that it will abide by the decision of the Court without a formal order being made. Accordingly, the High Court declares that the plaintiffs’ rights as adults, to access their own personal information under the Privacy Acts, in documents that are held by the defendant agencies which were ordered to be created by courts, are not limited, under s 7 of the Privacy Act 1993 or s 24 of the Privacy Act 2020, by the provisions, considered in this judgment, of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Care of Children Act 2004, the Children and Young Persons Act 1974, the Child Welfare Act 1925, the Guardianship Act 1968, and the District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 or Family Court Rules 2002.
The Crown has changed its position in relation to this legal issue several times. And survivors of abuse in state care cannot reasonably be expected to have confidence in the Crown’s word that it will abide by the decision of the Court without a formal order being made. Accordingly, the High Court declares that the plaintiffs’ rights as adults, to access their own personal information under the Privacy Acts, in documents that are held by the defendant agencies which were ordered to be created by courts, are not limited, under s 7 of the Privacy Act 1993 or s 24 of the Privacy Act 2020, by the provisions, considered in this judgment, of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Care of Children Act 2004, the Children and Young Persons Act 1974, the Child Welfare Act 1925, the Guardianship Act 1968, and the District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 or Family Court Rules 2002.