Supreme Court case information

Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing. 

Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.

All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.

Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.

24 June 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)

All years

Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 

18 April 2013

________________

tc

Transcript

Hearing date : 16 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Case name
Sst V The New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 99/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was in custody at the time that the s 38 reports were ordered – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge sufficiently examined the evidence in determining that the applicant was fit to plead.  [2012] NZCA 544   CA394/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2013.
Case name
HP v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Conviction – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no warning needed to be given to the jury in this case regarding allegedly unreliable evidence under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach in R v Taylor [2010] NZCA 69 to s 122 directions is correct –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce fresh evidence concerning the complainant.[2010] NZCA 617  CA 178/2010  16 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 March 2011.

Case name
VM  v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2011
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – validity and scope of search warrants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the validity of search warrants issued under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act can be used to authorise surveillance on private land – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – unreasonable search and seizure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the police in this case did not breach s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Evidence Act 2006 – admissibility of evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its undertaking of the s 30 balancing exercise and in concluding that the evidence in dispute was admissible at trial[2010] NZCA 528  CA 820/2010  19 November  2010
Result
The appeal is allowed in part.  The video surveillance evidence (other than footage of vehicles on Reid Road) is inadmissible against those appellants.  All the other disputed evidence is admissible against them.
2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or was, alternatively, properly admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

25 March 2011

Hearing

3 and 4 May 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.

Case name
Taito Phillip Hans Field
Case number
SC 3/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Corruption and Bribery – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the wrong test for corruptly obtaining a  bribe under s 103 Crimes Act 1961 – Whether Court of Appeal applied the wrong test for attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding appellant was not deprived of right to a fair trial and no miscarriage had resulted through admission of evidence from ministerial inquiry – Whether Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss appeal against sentence.[2010] NZCA 556  CA 681/2009  26 November  2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.

Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal has in [2010] NZCA 556 correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe in terms of s 103 of the Crimes Act 1961.

17 March 2011

____________________

Appeal dismissed.

27 October 2011

Case name
Toa Haere Faulkner v Deputy Registrar, Trustees of Allotment 5 Parish of Tahawai and Western Bay of Plenty District Court
Case number
SC 13/2011
Summary
Civil appeal – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Determination of the Maori Land Court of Maori freehold land status – Whether the Maori Land Court erred in law – Whether the Maori Land Court failed to consider evidence – Whether the Maori Land Court is biased towards the Crown.Maori Appellate Court A 20090002450 21 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd respondent.

12  April 2011.
Case name
AVM v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 85 – Whether Crown ought to have disclosed material in its possession regarding expert witness to defence, in order to prevent ‘trial by ambush’ – Whether cross-examination of expert was in substance a challenge to witness’ veracity and s 37 was properly complied with (ie leave should have been sought) – Whether leave should have been sought based on s 85, ss 7 and 8 or common law – Whether in all the circumstances, the applicant had a fair trial. [2011] NZCA 84  CA 438/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 June 2011.
Case name
DF  v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of Evidence – Defective warrant – Whether the Court of Appeal gave sufficient weight to defects in the warrant application when it determined that the evidence was admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2011] NZCA 151  CA 612/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 May 2011
Case name
Kunal Nand Reddy v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence of good character – That failure of trial counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s good character caused a miscarriage of justice – Trial process – That the trial Judge’ s directions were insufficiently clear – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe – Accessory after the fact – That the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2011] NZCA 181   CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191   CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.