Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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
The Queen v GKB
Case number
SC 88/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of previous consistent statements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged until a proposed witness gives evidence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged by reference to an accused’s pre‑trial statement to the police.[2010] NZCA 326  CA 313/2010  27 August 2010.
Result

Appeal allowed.  Decision of the District Court reinstated.

17 December 2010
Hearing

7 December 2010.

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

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is only triggered by a challenge to veracity made at trial.

23 September 2010.
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 November 2010.
Case name
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 221/2010 7 October 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

2 December 2010
Case name
GB v The Queen
Case number
SC 108/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 222/2010 7 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

2 December 2010
Case name
DJB  v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493  CA 110/2010   29  October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 5 May 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Graham Ashley Robert Palmer v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for dishonest use of a GST return – whether the conduct of the  investigation and criminal prosecution of the applicant was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Judges’ Rules – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the identity of a witness – whether the trial Judge erred in his summing up to the jury  – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account evidence produced by the applicant as to the value of goods – whether there has been error in the calculation of the period for which the applicant is subject to release conditions following his sentence of imprisonment[2010] NZCA 53  CA 349/2009    5 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PALMER v R SC 119/2010 [22 March 201 (PDF, 39 KB)
Hearing
Dates
Case name
OH v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2010
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 825/2009  19 November 2010
Result
The appeal 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
HAMED and OTHERS v R SC 125/2010 and Others [24 March 2011] (PDF, 84 KB)
Substantive judgment
HAMED v R SC 125/2010 [2 September 2011] (PDF, 551 KB)
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
TWI and others  v The Queen
Case number
SC 128/2010 ; 129/2010; 130/2010; 131/2010; 132/2010; 133/2010/ 135/2010; 138/2010; 139/2010
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 497  CA 809/2009  19 November  2010
Result
A The appeals of Mr Tame Iti, Mr Te Rangiwhiria Kemara, Mr Urs Signer and Ms Emily Bailey are dismissed. B The appeals of the other appellants are 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
HAMED and OTHERS v R SC 125/2010 and Others [24 March 2011] (PDF, 84 KB)
Supreme court decision
HAMED v R SC 125/2010 [2 September 2011] (PDF, 551 KB)
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
Alana Glenys-May Thomas  v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal from decision of the Court of Appeal allowing the admission of certain evidence at trial – Police executing a search warrant obtained the evidence through a search of an apartment – Applicant pleaded guilty to variety of drug-related offences – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the police search warrant was lawful and the evidence lawfully and properly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal should have given greater weight to the breach of s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in determining whether the evidence should have been admitted.[2008] NZCA 4352  CA 81/2008  8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 April 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
THOMAS v R SC 11/2009 [7 April 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Judgment appealed from

R V GREEN AND ANOR CA CA77/2008 8 September 2008
Case name
John Kenneth Slavich v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Fraud – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Judicature Act 1908 – Parallel application for leave to appeal – Whether miscarriage of justice established – Whether evidence wrongly admitted – Whether trial counsel’s conduct inappropriate.CRI 2006–419–89  12 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 August 2009.
_______________________
The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
______________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of
16 April 2020 (Slavich v R [2020] NZSC 34) is dismissed.
21 June 2024
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SLAVICH V R SC 52/2009 10 August 2009 (PDF, 13 KB)
Recall judgment
SLAVICH v R SC 52/2009 [13 September 2011] (PDF, 45 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v R [2016] NZSC 25 [15 March 2016] (PDF, 77 KB)
Supreme court decision
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v R [2020] NZSC 34 [16 April 2020] (PDF, 149 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v R [2024] NZSC 72 [21 June 2024] (PDF, 194 KB)
Page 17 of 23